RE: communication | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Ruddick, T.R. (RUDDICK![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:49:01 -0600 (MDT) |
Michael, still insisting that nonverbals account for 93% of all communication, wrote: >However, even if the statistics are inaccurate, the principle is still true. >As I said, "I love you" can mean many different things, as can most words. OK, more research results: Most people believe that they can detect falsehood through nonverbal communication. One experiment after another has demonstrated that this belief is erroneous. Rubin et al, for example, learned that FBI and CIA agents who had been trained in detecting falsehood through nonverbals could do it no more often than randomly selected college frosh. UNLESS the falsehood related to a law-enforcement situation, in which case the agents did much better. Conclusion: nonverbals are unreliable. Falsehood is more reliably detected by finding contradictions in the verbal message. Simlarly, Elgin cited studies showing that lies can be more easily detected over the telephone than in person. Over the phone you aren't distracted by nonverbals (except vocal tone) so you attend to the verbal, which is more reliable. I think it's fair to conclude that communication is not as simple as the talk-show pundits would like to make it. "I love you" is an emotion-laden statement, and as such nonverbals are important. "Hand me them pliers, willya?" is not emotion-laden (OK, if you want to invent exotic situations where it would be, I acknowledge the possibility) and the world would be a ridiculous place if the next worker on the assembly line came back with "Your nonverbals tell me you really don't want the pliers". Incidentally, some people do read the pop communication paperbacks and try to live them, so some assembly-line workers have responded like that in real life. Most of them soon learned that it ruined the possibilities of really communicating effectively, and they quit. Would have been better had they not been misled in the first place. _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
-
RE: communication Ruddick, T.R., September 4 2001
- Re: RE: communication Michael D, September 4 2001
- RE: communication Ruddick, T.R., September 5 2001
-
Re: RE: communication Michael D, September 5 2001
- Re: RE: communication Sharon Villines, September 5 2001
-
Re: RE: communication Howard Landman, September 5 2001
- Re: RE: communication Michael D, September 5 2001
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.