Nonverbal communication: how significant is it?

[Coriolis]

I was going to post this in the Aziz Ansari thread, in a reply to Amargith and Julius on the topic of nonverbal communication, but realized that would just perpetuate the derail, so here is a new thread for this topic.

Sigh. Funny how coaching, consulting, marketing and translator/interpretor courses all include that research as a vital part of the training you receive.

I've heard this in corporate training session, too, although I don't know the source of the data.

At one time, everyone was taught that the earth was flat, people who could float were witches, smoking was cool, cold weather makes you sick, or African Americans were not intelligent or capable enough to be pilots or hold other demanding jobs since research had clearly demonstrated as much. Scientific validity is not determined through a popularity contest, and at times the majority - a very large majority - has indeed been wrong.

Now for Amargith's reference, which she in fact posted on my visitor wall, not in the Ansari thread, but I will link and quote from it. Let's start by pointing out what I am NOT claiming, namely that nonverbal cues don't exist or carry no meaning. I just don't see how they can convey a large majority of our meaning except in very specialized cases (e.g. people unable to talk, or doing pantomime, or trying to get at least something across a large language barrier). Next we note that humans are highly subjective, variable, and diverse in our responses. It is well known that any experiments involving human or even other animal subjects need a much larger sample size than in most physical systems to achieve the same level of confidence in the conclusions drawn. To their credit, the authors of this article seem to acknowledge this, implicitly at least, in the strongly qualified way they present their claims.

For example:

The belief is that 55% of communication is body language, 38% is the tone of voice, and 7% is the actual words spoken.

We are starting off on shaky ground. Science rests on repeatable evidence, not belief.

The famous (at least in nonverbal communication circles!) researcher Albert Mehrabian is responsible for this percentage breakdown detailing the importance of nonverbal communication channels compared to verbal channels. Actually, it was two research studies (Mehrabian & Wiener, 1967 and Mehrabian & Ferris, 1967) combined that resulted in the 55/38/7 formula.

The numbers originate from one main source, likely quoted throughout "nonverbal communication circles" repeatedly. This is how one data set, or conclusion based on it, can gain widespread acceptance without having truly earned it through validation by other research studies over time.

The Mehrabian and Ferris study actually consists of a predecessor formula to the 55/38/7 formula: 60/40. The 60/40 formula they created represents the comparison of importance between facial (60%) and vocal (40%) components in regards to a person's attitude.

This suggests the breakdown refers specifically to information about a person's attitude, which narrows the scope considerably and makes the numbers more plausible. Most of us convey far more information throughout an average day than our attitude, though.

The problem with this, as with the general study of nonverbal communication, is that it is inaccurate to claim that a formula is absolute and applies to every situation.
Acknowledgment of one limitation of the notion.

The formula was created for a specific context- when the nonverbal channel and the verbal channel are incongruent (not matching). From his book Nonverbal Communication (page 108):

"When there are inconsistencies between attitudes communicated verbally and posturally, the postural component should dominate in determining the total attitude that is inferred."

And another.

Well, when I mention the 55/38/7 numbers, I clearly state this applies to certain situations and, more importantly, should not be used as a deciding factor to try and understand the situation. A proper analysis needs to occur to fully grasp what the person's current emotions are at that moment.

OK, so now this formula applies to emotions. I guess it doesn't apply to the information you share with someone on how to get to Peoria, or why Star Trek is better than Star Wars, or or what you would like do and see on your upcoming vacation.

Looking for nonverbal communication gestures in clusters prevents us from allowing a single gesture or movement to be definitive in determining a person's state of mind or emotion. Sure, crossing your arms at your chest can be a sign of being resistant and close-minded, however, if the person's shoulders are raised and their teeth are chattering, they might just be cold!

And another limitation, specifically that these "cues" are subjective; one gesture can mean very different things to different people, especially across different cultures, making it quite easy to misinterpret. In comparison, "I'm not feeling well right now" or "I want to do this and not that" is extraordinarily clear.

Finally, congruence we already discussed above in regards to the formula. Do the spoken words match the tone and the body language? After someone falls, and they verbally state they are fine, however their face is grimacing and their voice is shaky, you might want to probe a little deeper.

Finally, an example. All I can say is that, were I on the receiving end of that deeper probing, I would feel the other person was being pushy or intrusive. When I say "I'm fine", I mean it. Sure, I might be shaky and grimacing, but I am essentially unhurt, don't need any help/attention, will be over it momentarily, and can we please get on with what we were doing?

The 55/38/7 percentage and the 3 C's of Nonverbal Communication remind us that, when trying to understand others, a single gesture or comment does not necessarily mean something. Instead, these theories allow us to take note and observe more to get a better understanding of what is going on.

Take note and observe, indeed. We might start with what the other person is actually saying.

 

[Amargith]

The way you say that ‘im fine’ will tell a person not to probe, coz your aggrevation will be written on your face. Someone who says it timidly and tries to smile is trying not to be a burden, but isnt fine and should get more support.

In fact, that was my entire point. As was yours, it seemed. This thing was a red herring anyway, as, from what i recall, you said a mealy mouthed no was not enough communication. Only a firm one with walking out was clear enough. Id say thats about as non verbal as it gets. All i argued is that a hesitating no, and avoidance behavior in general also holds communication that is significant - and yes, is a style preferred by some. Ironically, i could argue the point now that im purely looking at the verbal component and you re the one who is usingnon verbal components to value its worth, but then i dont agree with that stance either, so i wont.

Anyways, im kinda done with this derail and the general topic, coz this is definitely not the kind of discussion i enjoy having.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The belief is that 55% of communication is body language, 38% is the tone of voice, and 7% is the actual words spoken.

I facepalm every time I see this, since for me this isn't communication but a guessing game. Which is basically useless since the ratios are completely wrong for exchanging the actual information.
If I see that the person profoundly thinks like this I generally lose interest to be around such person. Plus this is also why I find "charismatic" people to be terrible communicators in my book.


For years I have tried to keep my cards hidden but I have concuded that I am fundamentally uncompatible with this mindset and I don't want to live like this.

 

[Virtual ghost]

From the other thread.

Sigh. Funny how coaching, consulting, marketing and translator/interpretor courses all include that research as a vital part of the training you receive.

In my opinion this is so shortsighted that I am going to call you out on this.


You may be right in how most people communicate but for me that isn't the real issue, for me the real issue is about incouraging worldviews that are build on this approach to living. People may apprach the life as you claim but that is probably mostly because someone thought them to be like this. What you have just described is basically the foundation of corporate ideology and modern con artist methodolgies. Few years ago I was in the class where you had balkan people (mostly guys) and western female teacher (probably ENFJ). So to tell you the truth we all thought she is incompetent to teach (and solve issues) and she though we have no manners. What got to the point that school management had to step in. Therefore from this it is evident that this is heavily a matter of upbringing and that there isn't absolute answer.


But that still has very serious social and geopolitical issues.
Why are we flooded with useless political campaigns and vote for the guy with the better joke ? Why is this planet being polluted into another mass extinction ? Is it because lawers and PR experts have invented their pseudo reality through new communiation techniques? Why is half of the western civilization on meds all the time ? Why is my part of the world rising totalitarian ideologies ? Is is because people are tired of endless BS that is covering up crime/corruption and incompetence while at the same time the social pressure is that you can't call spade a spade? Which is exactly why you will probably have anti liberal people in offices through out the world eventually. Because people like you have convinced themselves that you can't be wrong with your smoothering logic even if that may have horrible social consequences.


The truth is that the factual public debates have been basically killed off completely by CEOs and mainstream politicians that only care about their image (and people like you created them or prepared the terrain for them). In a way that is exactly how we got Trump, since he was the only guy that showed some signs of straight forward approach to life. Not to mention that this entire emotional/soft approach is exactly why the west is in general economic decline. Since this emotional ideology of marketing and social skills has undermined greatly the ability of the people to do concrete/technical manufacturing jobs that require skills that are more than just talk and people skills. Since you brainwashed people with dreams, products and people skills ... but forgot the basics. For which you need direct factual communication that nothing can replace. What as the outcome allowed the dictatorships at the east to take the spotlight, since most westeners aren't even able to maintain their own infrastructure. This is why western Europe likes labour from the Eastern Europe, since we are still somewhat able to do the concrete physical stuff. Which is generally paid pretty badly because these aren't jobs based on image, which became holy grail over the decades. The less BSing smaller the income ... and that is the consequnce of ideology that is based on twisting the foundations of the communication.



But judging from your general posting style you just don't see that you are on the wrong side. (and I know that I am being brutal here)

 

[Tilt]

To be honest, I think there are general guidelines for a majority of people but with each individual, there are unique baselines and subtleties and it can take a little while to get the big picture.

I am skeptical of those who rely mainly on nonverbal cues.

I know that I tend to run into many issues with those who claim to be good at picking up on nonverbal cues because they can pick up on the changes in nonverbal cues but I often feel like I have to defend myself as to why I am acting a certain way because they are relying way too heavily on "nonverbal cues" and dismiss what I am saying like they know me better than myself.

Example: Not answering something.

For person 1, they could be absent-minded. For person 2, they could be passive aggressive. For person 3, something could be upsetting them irrelevant to the situation. For person 4, they didn't perceive it as important/don't understand.

 

[rav3n]

Can't speak for others but for myself, nonverbal communications are significant in my judging process. It's how I tell people are lying in meatspace.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

It's how I tell people are lying in meatspace.

Yeah. There are studies to back this up, but I'm rubbish at finding such data when I need it.

 

[Tilt]

Yeah. There are studies to back this up, but I'm rubbish at finding such data when I need it.

Paul Ekman might help. He is a prominent researcher in micro-expressions and deception.

 

[Mole]

Non verbal provides the context for verbal.

 

[Coriolis]

The way you say that ‘im fine’ will tell a person not to probe, coz your aggrevation will be written on your face. Someone who says it timidly and tries to smile is trying not to be a burden, but isnt fine and should get more support.

In fact, that was my entire point. As was yours, it seemed. This thing was a red herring anyway, as, from what i recall, you said a mealy mouthed no was not enough communication. Only a firm one with walking out was clear enough. Id say thats about as non verbal as it gets. All i argued is that a hesitating no, and avoidance behavior in general also holds communication that is significant - and yes, is a style preferred by some. Ironically, i could argue the point now that im purely looking at the verbal component and you re the one who is usingnon verbal components to value its worth, but then i dont agree with that stance either, so i wont.

Anyways, im kinda done with this derail and the general topic, coz this is definitely not the kind of discussion i enjoy having.

It is a matter of effectiveness. Ideally the other person would respect the mealy-mouthed "no", and if the speaker really meant something else and was then disappointed, oh, well - lesson learned for next time. If the weak "no" doesn't work, it needs to be repeated, and followed through not with more words, said in any tone of voice, but with action - leaving. I suppose that is the ultimate nonverbal communication: voting with your feet.

 

[á´…eparted]

I control and use mine significantly and I pay very close attention to it when with others, it's always on. It's not all I rely on though, so I can navigate with someone when it isn't or can't be used, but it is much more challening. I also can not comfortably solely rely on it.

I extract data in social situation from as many angles as I possibly can to build an accurate picture. Words, logic, tones, body language, contexts, external factors (environment). Lots said, but lots unsaid. It's all useful, but they rely on one another to be useful.

 

[Lark]

I've read and been told, trained even, to expect that it is incredibly important, especially in situations of aggression or violence or crisis, its 70% of the communication but perhaps that's just at that point of intensity, which may be different to the normal interaction or the interaction in the situation being discussed in the OP.

I am inclined to disfavour inexplicit communication sometimes, no one wants to be condescended to but on the one hand people are not mind readers and on the other vagaries are easily exploited by people who are inclined to do so, that's not entirely to do with non-verbals though.

There are very skilled manipulators, who I have seen use non-verbals and body language to full effect, mirroring, presence etc. some for good and some for bad, I think that Zarathustra or Uber went through a phase of being very interested in the pick up artist books (PUA for short) and I remember their posting on the forum referencing their suspicion that they'd encountered people in bars who were using the PUA tactics in their interaction with them and others and while I'm wary of that sort of thing, its a little like when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, but they may have been right.

 

[Tater]

It's worth noting that some people don't pick up on nonverbal communication as well as others. Nonverbal learning disorder comes to mind. Low empathy may also obstruct someone's ability to internalize the communication they receive.

I'm not sure if an exact percentage can easily be measured, but I think nonverbal communication plays a significant role in interpersonal dynamics for most people. We evolved from animals that had to use nonverbal communication over verbal communication. For instance, many mammals have whites around their pupils in part because the contrast helps them know where members of their species are looking. Even species that predate mammals naturally express dominance or submissiveness through body language, suggesting their positions in their social hierarchies. Furthermore, human beings constantly give off nonverbal signals whether they want to or not. Blushing, sweating, eye dilation, posture, and facial expressions tend to factor in. Sometimes cues surface on the unconscious level. For instance, people release pheromones that increase responsiveness from members of the opposite sex.

In my own life, I notice that people who heavily pick up on nonverbal cues have leverage in their live interactions with others. I'm not particularly good at it, but when I decide to tune into that wavelength, it improves my ability to understand others. It ups my game when I'm playing cards as well.

 

[LightSun]

As much as 55% of what we say is communicated through body language and facial expressions UCLA Professor Albert Mehrabian asserts in his book, "Silent Messages." Dr. Mehrabians 7-38-55% rule.
7% spoken word, 38% voice, tone, 55% body language.

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6365860739005186048

 

[LightSun]

It's worth noting that some people don't pick up on nonverbal communication as well as others. Nonverbal learning disorder comes to mind. Low empathy may also obstruct someone's ability to internalize the communication they receive.

I'm not sure if an exact percentage can easily be measured, but I think nonverbal communication plays a significant role in interpersonal dynamics for most people. We evolved from animals that had to use nonverbal communication over verbal communication. For instance, many mammals have whites around their pupils in part because the contrast helps them know where members of their species are looking. Even species that predate mammals naturally express dominance or submissiveness through body language, suggesting their positions in their social hierarchies. Furthermore, human beings constantly give off nonverbal signals whether they want to or not. Blushing, sweating, eye dilation, posture, and facial expressions tend to factor in. Sometimes cues surface on the unconscious level. For instance, people release pheromones that increase responsiveness from members of the opposite sex.

In my own life, I notice that people who heavily pick up on nonverbal cues have leverage in their live interactions with others. I'm not particularly good at it, but when I decide to tune into that wavelength, it improves my ability to understand others. It ups my game when I'm playing cards as well.

Floki wrote (all numbered quotations are Floki followed by my response), (1) "... worth noting...people don't pick up on nonverbal communication as well as others."

This is certainly true. For a person who has these traits they have some edge: interpersonal intelligence, intrpersonal intelligence and empathy. These are are useful tools to get into the other persons frame of referance. To be attuned to the persons entire body of language and communication, picking up clues and insight.

(2) Nonverbal learning disorder comes to mind. Low empathy...obstruct...internalize... communication...receive."

At the extreme range is autisms and aspergers syndrome.

(3) "...exact percentage ...easily....measured...."

Dr. Albert Mehrabians research broke down the figures to 7% spoken word, 38% voice and tone and 55% body language.

(4) "...nonverbal communication plays a significant role in interpersonal dynamics....people."

Also quite true. I would think that because many of our mannerisms are automatic and not under conscious control they have ways of slipping the mask that hides the face.

(5) "....cues surface on the unconscious level." and "...instance, people release pheromones... increase responsiveness...members ...opposite sex." and "...people who heavily pick up on nonverbal cues have leverage in their live interactions with others." and "...wavelength, it improves my ability...understand..."

We are continually communicating. Those who are more apt, open and receptive to these unconscious clues do posses an edge.

 

[Sacrophagus]

It is a matter of effectiveness. Ideally the other person would respect the mealy-mouthed "no", and if the speaker really meant something else and was then disappointed, oh, well - lesson learned for next time. If the weak "no" doesn't work, it needs to be repeated, and followed through not with more words, said in any tone of voice, but with action - leaving. I suppose that is the ultimate nonverbal communication: voting with your feet.

Let us not forget that most INTJs, who have not yet fostered an interest in inter-relationship skills, will take everything literally.

But let me reveal you something of a matter:
The way the message is delivered matters more than the message itself. If one can understand and accept this, he's one step closer to comprehend the world and the people around him.

I respect your inquisitive mind, and I understand the frustration you can experience when someone is uttering an answer, you act on it, and you later find out they meant something else. You simply can't understand why one would say something they don't mean, or why would someone say the same thing and be received differently, and that's okay.

All of us are biased, and surely, it manifests in the way we prefer to process information. Even if it is in small degrees, no matter how critical we are, whether one wants to admit it or not, a part of our mind considers who delivered the message, how it was delivered, and the message in itself, and we can finally choose how we want to process it.

Now, Coriolis, imagine we have two people, and we gave them the same comedy script.
One of them is pretty low energy, very anxious, and the other one has a sparkly confident personality, he loves entertaining people, he's pretty comfortable in his skin, goofy, and walks on the stage as if it was his own. Who do you think will make the people laugh more?

Aren't they the same jokes? The same words? It is the delivery that matters, that delivery which translates the state of mind into body language that our subconscious mind can pick up, and we ourselves mirror. In addendum, that is the very core of initial attraction.

It all comes up to our preferences in interactions. Once you start considering the state of mind of the other people, you're going to make better choices. A sister of mine went through depression in the past, and used to make all kind of contradictory statements. If I followed her words, cunningly and eloquently delivered, she could've been dead, if her body language didn't betray her.

Since it is a matter of efficiency, the aim here is to efficiently understand the other, and be understood as well.

 

[Coriolis]

Let us not forget that most INTJs, who have not yet fostered an interest in inter-relationship skills, will take everything literally.

But let me reveal you something of a matter:
The way the message is delivered matters more than the message itself. If one can understand and accept this, he's one step closer to comprehend the world and the people around him.

I respect your inquisitive mind, and I understand the frustration you can experience when someone is uttering an answer, you act on it, and you later find out they meant something else. You simply can't understand why one would say something they don't mean, or why would someone say the same thing and be received differently, and that's okay.

All of us are biased, and surely, it manifests in the way we prefer to process information. Even if it is in small degrees, no matter how critical we are, whether one wants to admit it or not, a part of our mind considers who delivered the message, how it was delivered, and the message in itself, and we can finally choose how we want to process it.

Surely interpersonal skills go well beyond the ability to assume someone means something other than what they actually said. In fact, I find taking a person at his/her word is a key element of respect. I also value honesty, being reliable/keeping commitments, helping out when I can, and keeping confidences. In this sense, actions do speak louder than words, but they are actions of real impact and significance, not simply whether I have my arms crossed while we are chatting.

I do consider who is making the comment, as it impacts accuracy: does the person have the expertise or background to know what they are talking about? A criticism of my work from the boss will thus carry more weight than one from my neighbor who has no idea what I do at work. Beyond that, however, it becomes a guessing game I prefer not to play, as it is far too easy to guess wrong. There is, of course, ambiguity even in our spoken and written words, but I find I can come much closer to my real meaning that way.

Now, Coriolis, imagine we have two people, and we gave them the same comedy script.
One of them is pretty low energy, very anxious, and the other one has a sparkly confident personality, he loves entertaining people, he's pretty comfortable in his skin, goofy, and walks on the stage as if it was his own. Who do you think will make the people laugh more?

Aren't they the same jokes? The same words? It is the delivery that matters, that delivery which translates the state of mind into body language that our subconscious mind can pick up, and we ourselves mirror. In addendum, that is the very core of initial attraction.

It all comes up to our preferences in interactions. Once you start considering the state of mind of the other people, you're going to make better choices. A sister of mine went through depression in the past, and used to make all kind of contradictory statements. If I followed her words, cunningly and eloquently delivered, she could've been dead, if her body language didn't betray her.

Comparing our everyday interactions to a comedy routine is like comparing a shopping list to a poem. Going through the day analyzing everything for subtext the way we had to analyze poems in school would be incredibly frustrating and tiring -- and inefficient. I have no objection to considering someone else's state of mind, but to consider it I have to know it with reasonable accuracy. The only way I can do that is through direct verbal explanation or confirmation. Otherwise I am just grasping at straws.

 

[Lark]

Do you think that you can hypnotise people with body language?

That would be an awesome martial arts skill.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Paul Ekman might help. He is a prominent researcher in micro-expressions and deception.

He's definitely one of the names that come to mind. I don't know if this is from his work or not - but one clear indication that someone is being dishonest is if they shake their head (which usually means "no") while making an affirmative statement. The theory behind it is that cognitive dissonance is such an uncomfortable feeling that part of the body belies what's being spoken without the person being conscious of the beliel [new word] happening. Actors do this *a lot* without realizing it, and it's a pet peeve of mine. It should be in Acting 101. It disrupts suspension of disbelief.

Acting actually raises an interesting question about the topic at hand: if nonverbal communication isn't crucial to the message being communicated, then what's the difference between a good actor and a bad one? Surely it isn't just the script.

 

[rav3n]

Surely interpersonal skills go well beyond the ability to assume someone means something other than what they actually said. In fact, I find taking a person at his/her word is a key element of respect. I also value honesty, being reliable/keeping commitments, helping out when I can, and keeping confidences. In this sense, actions do speak louder than words, but they are actions of real impact and significance, not simply whether I have my arms crossed while we are chatting.

I do consider who is making the comment, as it impacts accuracy: does the person have the expertise or background to know what they are talking about? A criticism of my work from the boss will thus carry more weight than one from my neighbor who has no idea what I do at work. Beyond that, however, it becomes a guessing game I prefer not to play, as it is far too easy to guess wrong. There is, of course, ambiguity even in our spoken and written words, but I find I can come much closer to my real meaning that way.


Comparing our everyday interactions to a comedy routine is like comparing a shopping list to a poem. Going through the day analyzing everything for subtext the way we had to analyze poems in school would be incredibly frustrating and tiring -- and inefficient. I have no objection to considering someone else's state of mind, but to consider it I have to know it with reasonable accuracy. The only way I can do that is through direct verbal explanation or confirmation. Otherwise I am just grasping at straws.

It's not a conscious effort. It's unconscious evaluation for most people. Talk is also very cheap.