• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Body Language

Mighty_Emperor

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
19,408
Just a general thread for th discussion of body language - esp. as there is a two parter on it on Channel 4 coming up. The minise doesn't do much (its all done in Flash so I suspect it might be enable closer to the time so keep an eye on it):

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/B/bodytalk/

The great Charlie Brooker delivers his typically acserbic review of it in today's Guarian guide and it sounds great (OCRed so there might be errors):

You should always judge I people by their actions, not their words. Obvious, really. You wouldn't believe Peter Kurten, the "monster of Dusseldorf" who murdered nine Germans in 1929, had your best interests at heart just because he told you he did. Especially if he was sticking a bread knife in your eye at the time.

"Actions, not words" is the mantra of Body Talk (Mon, 8pm, C4), an absorbing two-parter in which Dr Peter Collett examines the body language of the rich and famous in a bid to prove what tossers they are. And succeeds.

Programme one deals with the language of power, and concentrates on politicians. Collett identifies the characteristic movements (known as "tells") that Blair, Bush and co make whenever they're feeling nervous, confident, aggressive, or sexually aroused. Actually, he doesn't cover arousal. Thank Christ.

Take Gordon Brown, who can't sit still when Blair is speaking. Collett observes him at a Labour party conference, anxiously fidgeting his way through a well-received speech from Blair. On fast motion, he turns into Robert Lindsay in GBH.

Blair, meanwhile, has a habit of sliding his hands into his front pockets when he's feeling awkward. He thinks it makes him „ look relaxed: in reality, it makes him look like an embarrassed 3 shop-window dummy with some sort of bum disorder. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he often affects this stance when he's required to pose alongside psychotic, lying drink-drivers. Called George Bush.

Bush is a body language goldmine. He often looks more like a frightened boy than a president, albeit a frightened boy with 24-hour access to the most fearsome nuclear arsenal the world has ever seen. Whenever Bush feels scared and out of his depth, he chews the inside of his mouth. Alarmingly, he chews the inside of his mouth pretty much all the time. That's probably how he choked on that pretzel.

There are other examples of Bush's giveaway buffoonerisms, including some fascinating games of physical one-upmanship between him and Bill Clinton. Ask the pair of them to walk side-by-side and it quickly degenerates into a hilarious dick-swinging contest, with each attempting to stride in a more commanding, statesmanlike manner than the other. The berks.

And this is just the stuff that's been caught on camera. I'd love to see Bush's private body language: the faces he pulls while trying to pass a particularly rigid stool for instance, or the delighted reeling jig he doubtless performs each time he bombs another town full of unarmed brown folk. Or when he was choking to death on that pretzel — I'd love to have seen the way his legs shook and popped around as he clawed at his throat, desperately gulping for air. Hoo, boy — if the White House have CCTV footage of that they should release it on DVD, backed with comic piano music and a voiceover track of Iraqi schoolkids laughing at his hateful, shuddering face.

Anyway. It's a good programme and you should watch it.

And by Jove I think I will!!

Emps
 
Ask the pair of them to walk side-by-side and it quickly degenerates into a hilarious dick-swinging contest, with each attempting to stride in a more commanding, statesmanlike manner than the other.

America swings its dick and the rest of the world gets slapped.
 
Or when he was choking to death on that pretzel - I'd love to have seen the way his legs shook and popped around as he clawed at his throat, desperately gulping for air. Hoo, boy - if the White House have CCTV footage of that they should release it on DVD, backed with comic piano music and a voiceover track of Iraqi schoolkids laughing at his hateful, shuddering face.

that bit had me in tears when i read it in the guide..
:rofl:

Charlie Brooker- Top Banana :yeay:
 
I love all his stuff like TV Go Home ;)

Anyway the first part was excellent and highly entertaing - its amazing what sings ('tells') people give away.

Also this is partly based on Peter Collets book 'The Book of Tells' (geddit):

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385604297/

Also I seem to have given the wrong link to the mini-site (that'll teach me for relying on their internal search engine!!) and the Channel 4 pages on this are here:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/bodytalk/

Which has plenty of interesting information.

Emps
 
* Waves arms about in a circle *

Never quite understood...

*Scratches nose *

all of this body language

*points finger *

business.

*engages in Pythonesque silly walk *
:)
 
The programme was interesting enough, but I was expecting Mr Collett to say whether they were lying about WMDs rather than how nervous George W Bush was about meeting the Queen.
 
"I'd love to see Bush's private body language: the faces he pulls while
trying to pass a particularly rigid stool for instance . . ."

I remember reading somewhere that a good way to control interview nerves
was to imagine your interviewer engaged in this activity.

I recall stepping into one ghastly arena where an entire Education Committee
was arranged before me in a semi-circle. As I tried to picture the porcelain
thrones beneath them, I began to wish for one beneath me. :eek!!!!:
 
James Whitehead said:
"I'd love to see Bush's private body language: the faces he pulls while trying to pass a particularly rigid stool for instance . . ."

Probably much like the faces he pulls in public. :D

Or should that be faeces? :D
 
I've just been listening to a R4 prog about body language. Very interesting it was too.

We need BL so much in order to understand each other, we've had to create a special form of it to help get our meaning across online. Know what I mean! ;)

Peeps can 'say' what they 'really mean' through BL.
When others 'read' these signals they may get a different message from what comes out of the person's mouth.

As a personal example, I met someone last year who spoke perfectly politely and in a friendly way to me and to others, but whose BL was hostile and insulting.

This person has problems 'getting to know' the opposite sex and I can see why, although obviously they can't. :lol:

The FBI love BL too.
 
http://www.rense.com/general63/bushm.htm

The above url reveals a series of photos of Bush lovingly fondling a variety of bald heads ... heads generally. And have to say, he looks very sweet.

It's always seemed to me that Bush is very much the little boy. I can't take him seriously as a monster or even a war-monger. He's very unsure of himself and seems to operate at the level of shy little eight year old doing his best to please. The only thing that made me wonder if I was wrong was the reported claim by a woman a year or so ago that he'd raped her and her husband, assisted by CIA goons. I tried to imagine Bush in that role --- and that was scarey; the imagined Jekyll and Hyde transformation. In fact, I simply cannot imagine Bush having sex. Nor Blair for that matter.

He's like a kid in a man's suit. He seems to genuinely like people and as if he wants them to like him. He's a tryer; a simple, friendly little boy struggling to sound and behave grown-up. He tries to use big-words, stumbles, struggles, but keeps on trying. It's a labour of love, I think -- an attempt to please (Poppy? Cheyney? Laura? Poppy's mates?). He was pushed into the position he holds; I don't believe he derives enjoyment from it and suspect he'll be happy when it's over. He gives the impression he'd love to ditch the suit and go back to roaring around dirt roads in his truck, stopping at buddies' places for bar-b-que, beer and boys' talk. Wonder if they'll let him, or if he'll have an accident or stroke? Time will tell.
 
escargot said:
As a personal example, I met someone last year who spoke perfectly politely and in a friendly way to me and to others, but whose BL was hostile and insulting.

This person has problems 'getting to know' the opposite sex and I can see why, although obviously they can't. :lol:

:hello:
 
:lol:

Grins, raises eyebrows impishly
 
strokes chin (own) with hand
 
Long-shots of politicians are generally their undoing, as they're often aware. Churchill was one who seemed comfortable in his own skin. Rumsfeld also, to a large degree. Blair seems neurotic from go to whoa; most women would pick him as being prone to peevish tantrums, headaches and tummy-upsets and his wife's miserable demeanor appears to confirm that.

The more people depart from their natural bent/ try to conceal, the more they rely on artificial facial and bodily mechanisms.

Are psychopaths able to be 'read' by body-language experts though? And, within a diagnosed case of multiple-personality syndrome, does each personality prove to have separate body-language?
 
This is in FT294's Mythconceptions, but I thought it was worth a thread. They call it The Mehrabian Myth, but basically it's the idea that your body language does most of the talking, far more than your words.

The rule is the words are 7% of the meaning, the tone of voice 38% and your body language 55%, but actually Professor Albert Mehrabian said that only applies in strict circumstances, when there's only one word spoken and the expression is at odds with it. To apply it anywhere else is wrong.

Now this bothered me because I was taught that very thing in college! And it turns out to be a load of rubbish! Just interested, but was anyone else taught this at any point?

Now I'm thinking about this, I seem to remember I was taught the significant non-verbal communication was far more than 55% and was something like 75% or more, how did this figure keep increasing? This was in the 1990s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've seen the OP's percentages* recently in an article about the teaching of boys, probably in the TES or Education Groaniad.

Of course, if we get all those right, the message is still unlikely to get through, because of our hair, our clothes, the cars we drive and the fact we are teachers! :?

*Or ones very near.
 
JamesWhitehead said:
I've seen the OP's percentages* recently in an article about the teaching of boys, probably in the TES or Education Groaniad.

Of course, if we get all those right, the message is still unlikely to get through, because of our hair, our clothes, the cars we drive and the fact we are teachers! :?

*Or ones very near.

But most importantly, do you say, 'I don't know where you're going, that bell's for me, not for you'? Rather dates me, I know.
 
I've done technical support for a number of companies. That stuff about how most communication is done via body language usually crops up during training.
 
Has anyone else noted the seriously weird body-language that is being taught to those poor sods who canvas on the streets for Shelter and other charidees. They run towards you with strange tripping steps, flapping their hands by their hips as if they are about to launch at you and give you a hug. Most disconcerting! It is clear they have been taught it, though quite why is hard to fathom. :nah:
 
My response would most likely to be a paraphrasing of "Go away you strange person".
 
balding13 said:
JamesWhitehead said:
I've seen the OP's percentages* recently in an article about the teaching of boys, probably in the TES or Education Groaniad.

Of course, if we get all those right, the message is still unlikely to get through, because of our hair, our clothes, the cars we drive and the fact we are teachers! :?

*Or ones very near.

But most importantly, do you say, 'I don't know where you're going, that bell's for me, not for you'? Rather dates me, I know.

We've just had a bell installed at my school. I actually said that the other day. I didn't really need to, and my class are only 4 year olds, but I just wanted to.
 
Has anyone else noted the seriously weird body-language that is being taught to those poor sods who canvas on the streets for Shelter and other charidees. They run towards you with strange tripping steps, flapping their hands by their hips as if they are about to launch at you and give you a hug. Most disconcerting! It is clear they have been taught it, though quite why is hard to fathom.

Ah yes. The chuggers. I think that they are supposed to adhere to guidelines which allow them to walk a certain number of steps along side you, but no more, and possibly to raise their hands only so high so as not to intimidate. The resulting body language is, as you say, rather odd.
 
gncxx said:
The rule is the words are 7% of the meaning, the tone of voice 38% and your body language 55%, but actually Professor Albert Mehrabian said that only applies in strict circumstances, when there's only one word spoken and the expression is at odds with it. To apply it anywhere else is wrong.

I don't agree, think of the Ali G comedy films, where he would insult someone but smile, leaving his victim thinking that either they had misheard him or that it was a mistake due to Ali G's character's poor command of English.

I can't remember the whole sketch, but I remember Ali G praising an American audience for their country's War OF Terror, and smiling at the same time.
 
I think the Prof was referring to that specific arrangement, but there are of course other possibilities. Though I don't want to speak for him, of course.
 
Xanatic_ said:
I've done technical support for a number of companies. That stuff about how most communication is done via body language usually crops up during training.

Yeah, I've been to loads of training courses where that old chestnut came up. Generally training courses run by people who seemed to think that the only truly effective form of communication was to put up loads of Power Point slides then read them out loud really slowly, whilst pointing at them.
 
I believe in the importance of body language if only because animals use it.

For example, apparently horses tell each other how they're feeling by the position of their ears. Saw someone on TV a few years ago who'd invented a sort of hat with giant horse-ears built on, which a vet could use to signal good intentions to horses when approaching them in a field.

The hat looked a bit bizarre but we were told that it worked. Probably better than chasing a nervous horse around a field for an hour or getting severely kicked, anyway.

We highly-literate human animals use smileys, which are pictures of our own faces making the expression we'd like to convey. On here, there are people who can insult us quite outrageously without them, but only if they know us very well.
In fact, I have had the odd supportive IM in the past, from people who've wanted to take my side after such rudeness!

So yup, I believe in it. In fact I couldn't have done some of the jobs I've had if I couldn't watch out for signs that I was about to get thumped or need to leg it after someone.

Works for chimps, don't knock it. ;)
 
Works for cats too...

Ears back = Not sure about this

Tail straight up = I'm happy

Tail straight up and tip curled forward = I like you

Tail straight up and shakin' = I really like you

Eyes closed = smiling

etc.....
 
So yup, I believe in it. In fact I couldn't have done some of the jobs I've had if I couldn't watch out for signs that I was about to get thumped or need to leg it after someone.

Yeah, I don't think anyone's arguing that body language isn't important. It's the ludicrous percentages which were trotted out at every corporate training course from about 1999-2007* that are at issue.

* I haven't heard them for a while so perhaps even the corporate training peeps have realised how ridiculous this sounds.
 
Back
Top