Paper - The need for rapport in police interviews

TITLE:
The need for rapport in police interviews

AUTHOR(S):
Roger Collins, Bond University
Robyn Lincoln, Bond University
Mark Frank, Rutgers University

Abstract:

Police interviews try to obtain a narrative of what was observed by witnesses, victims or suspects. Yet there is considerable debate about the most appropriate interview style, the best strategies to use, and the characteristics of interviewers or interviewees that yield the most useful information. Police interviews are integral to criminal investigations where accuracy and completeness are essential if a case is to be solved. They also have evidential ramifications that affect subsequent forensic and trial processes (Fisher et al, 1994; Py et al, 1997; McMahon, 2000; Gudjonsson, 1992).

In addition to the formal interview setting, police engage in “purposive conversations” on a daily basis, which are said to comprise up to 80 percent of their duties (Newberry & Stubbs, 1997). Yet, law enforcement personnel often do not receive adequate training in effective interviewing practices (Wrightsman et al, 1994; Lauchland & Le Brun, 1996). In many cases, there is little formal instruction, with officers learning their interview skills on the job, and this may foster the use of poor methods or result in the loss of potentially valuable information. This limited interview training still occurs for most general duties officers in Australia despite the wealth of research on interview techniques.

Link (PDF downloadable):
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/hss_pubs/38/

Pinky.

"Never ever ever talk to the Police"

Haven't you watched enough Law and Order to realize this by now?

The first video is by a law professor discussing why you shouldn't talk to the police, and how anything you say can indeed be used against you regardless of your innocence.

The second video is, more on topic for this blog, about how the police interviews you and get a confession out of you, by a police officer.

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html

Pinky.

Cool cold reading video

I've seen several videos on cold reading in the past. While basic, this one is quick, dirty, fun and gets the point across in a cute British accent and creative directing.

http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-be-psychic-cold-reading-techniques

Highly recommended. This is how instructional videos should look like.

Update:
A reader suggested the above video was minimal, barely a glance into the subject. I agree, but like it.

More instructional videos (more like Power Point presentations recorded into videos) on cold reading can be found on YouTube, in four parts:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=labhmXW5VUU
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-KWkZ1UqJI
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpIMg5YmUK8
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AL91hPGlto

The most famous text on cold reading is by Ray Hyman, Cold Reading: How to Convince Strangers That You Know All About Them. From “The Outer Edge, Classic Investigations of the Paranormal”:

http://ruahmidbar.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/strangers.doc

And here are Ray Hyman's 13 points in Guide to "Cold Reading":
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/coldread.htm

As a final example, check out this excerpt from the film Young Sherlock Holmes, in which an adolescent Watson is given a quick lesson in “simple deduction”.

Other resources are readily available on Google.

Pinky.

Washington Post flash presentation on Gestures

The story is called "What We Say Without Words", and described:
"Former FBI agent Joe Navarro describes how our torsos, hands, feet and legs frequently communicate emotions that are not put into words."

You can find it here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Joe Navarro also wrote a book on the subject of Poker body language called Read 'Em and Reap: A Career FBI Agent's Guide to Decoding Poker Tells with Phil Hellmuth.

Pinky.

Hostage negotiations

I recently started paying more attention to hostage negotiation after watching the new TV show Flashpoint.

Hostage negotiation is a difficult and complex task, and systems exist to aide the negotiator in everything from preventing escalation of the situation to creating rapport, all in the goal of closing, bringing the incident to a peaceful ending.

Reading about the subject, I found these articles most interesting, and more importantly, concise:

1. HowStuffWork entry on hostage negotiation
A good introduction to the subject and the system, with historical background and a bit on the Stockholm syndrome.

From the article above:

Stockholm Syndrome
Spending hours, days and months together doesn't only foster feelings on the part of the hostage-taker toward the hostages. The hostages often develop sympathy for their captors, as well. This is known as Stockholm Syndrome, named after a Swedish bank heist gone wrong that resulted in a six-day stand-off. The hostages ended up assisting the robber, acting as lookouts and giving him advice, while gradually coming to view the police outside as their common enemy. One of the female hostages even married him while he was still in prison.

There are complicated psychological reasons for Stockholm Syndrome. It is in part a defense mechanism that allows people to cope with an otherwise unbearable situation. It also has something to do with power -- the hostage-taker has the power to kill the hostages, and when he doesn't, the hostages' relief can turn into gratitude, which eventually develops into sympathy. Also, fear of the police rushing into the situation and killing the hostages accidentally in a shootout is very powerful and helps turn the hostages against the authorities.

2. From The Negotiator Magazine: Negotiation Lessons Learned by an FBI Hostage Negotiator
On hostage negotiations from the perspective of an FBI expert, comparing the task to his previous occupation, sales.

Some key quotes:

We, negotiators and sales people, know that our subjects and clients sometimes behave in seemingly irrational ways. We know how difficult it is to be truly heard or understood. Not matter how difficult the client or subject, we must remember that this negotiation is not about you, the negotiator or salesperson. It is about the subject or client and his or her needs. This point is may be hard to keep in mind especially when the client is nasty, insulting or worse.

Likewise, there is more to sales than just the marketing department and sales personnel. Everyone in the organization must be saying the same thing; from the CEO to even cleaning personnel. Cleaning personnel talking between themselves on an elevator in the presence of a potential client can derail a deal as quickly as a poor salesperson. A failure to recognize this point can be and has been costly in terms of lives and money.

Albert Einstein once said, “Make everything as simple as possible but not simpler.” There are many smart people in the FBI and in your corporation who will come up with complex answers to problems. The secret is in looking for simple answers from smart people! Those are the answers in which I have the most confidence. During an aircraft hijacking, FBI agents at the scene were concerned about a long coat the hijacker was wearing. It was speculated that the hijacker might have a bomb under the coat. Later, when asked why that particular coat was worn to the airport she said, “It was cold and it is the only coat I own.”

“Pushing the deal” for law enforcement negotiators is analogous to pushing for a close on a sale before the client is ready to close. Negotiators offer the “deal” at the outset but if the deal is declined, negotiators back off and begin the negotiation process. “Pushing the deal” too hard early-on builds distrust and people “dig in” against you.

Negotiators in the United States are taught that early on and, if appropriate, not to forget to ask the subject to come out. There have been instances in the United States when after negotiating for ten hours the subject finally surrendered. When asked why he did not come out sooner, the subject replied, “Nobody asked.”

Negotiators should listen for unspoken needs. One indicator that there are expressive needs not being met is when all of the instrumental needs have been met and a client still will not close a deal.

Expressive needs can be very personal. The subject's shift from instrumental needs to expressive needs may indicate the development of trust and rapport and, therefore, progress in the negotiation.

In conclusion, I believe that there are many more parallels between what law enforcement negotiators and business people do; far more than can be covered in a short article. The most significant parallel is that law enforcement negotiators and salespeople are both selling hope. The negotiator and salesperson are both selling the hope that the subject's or client's future will be better. In this writer's view, there is no more worthwhile product.

Pinky.

Manipulative Surgeon

A friend of mine recently went into surgery for shoulder reconstruction. The doctor told him that he did not perform that exact operation in the past, placing the plate where it needs to go.

The doctor proceeded to ask if my friend would prefer to do the surgery privately, which would cost him 1500 USD, or at the hospital which will cost him nothing. Although my friend's insurance covers all the costs, my friend chose the hospital.

What the doctor's intentions were is difficult to guess, but it seems to me (guessing here) he already gets paid pretty well, and that in the hospital he gets more support than he would in a private operating theater--especially due to his lack of experience.

This offer of apparent monetary loss by the doctor in favor of my friend made my friend trust him and believe he is on his side--his friend. Aside to that, my friend speaks with a lot of respect when mentioning the doctor "he is a doctor, after all."

This is not to say that medical doctors do not deserve respect, but rather that my friend was manipulated into complete trust in the doctor, as he is his friend, with his interests in mind and then, he is an authority to be trusted and imitated, despite of his apparent lack of experience.

"He is a cool guy," my friend would say. He probably is, but not as much as my friend seems to think.

I would have thought myself paranoid and put the affair out of my mind until I heard what happened when my friend bought the surgeon a relatively expensive gift following the operation. I think it was a nice thing to do, regardless of the following story.

The surgeon naturally refused the gift at first, calling him crazy in a very "down to earth, from the neighborhood" way. Then he thanked my friend graciously.

My friend was convinced he was completely healed and that the msucle tiisue is completely regenerated. The doctor replied that in the arms, maybe--but not in the shouldr. He asked my friend to put his arms up straight in front of him, put his own arms on top of my friend's and asked him to push up with all the strength he can muster. Then without a problem pushed my friend's hands down.

Now, while my friend's left arm was indeed weaker, and it seems obvious that any arms sitting on top of his have far more power in them to push down, my friend was convinced he must be more careful with his health and that he is not fully recovered.

Visualization at work.

This doctor, while I do believe is a very nice person, is a compliance and persuasion expert.

Pinky.

Small part of NLP vindicated

According to a 2007 paper, people find it easier to recall memories when in a similar body position.

The paper is:
Dijkstra, K., Kaschak, M.P., & Zwaan, R.A. (2007). Body posture faciltates retrieval of autobiographical memories. Cognition, 102, 139-149.

It is covered in the Cognitive Daily blog.

While speaking of body positions, it is said it is much easier for us to think clearly when lying down, hence psychologists offices setup.

Past research has shown smell, as an example, can help stimulate memory as well.

So, what's the relevance to NLP you ask? Body position is one of the things it preaches.

Pinky.

Neuroscience, buzzwords and a touch of persuasion

In this ABC article Natasha Mitchell discusses advances in neuroscience, and connects it with what we will see in the future as well as how it may impact persuasion.

There is also a brief mention of brain scans and the courts, in relation to lie detection as well as detecting instances of false memories.

The story also covers other interesting subjects such as detecting illness in our genes and, briefly, how that impacts health insurance.

A line that will stay with me from the text is: "The big battle used to be about nature versus nurture. Now it's more a case of nature via nurture, and our genetic birthright isn't necessarily a life curse."

There are also a lot of buzzwords mentioned, such as: neuro-marketing, neuro-economics, neuro-theology, neuro-leadership and neuro-architecture.

Worth a read.

Pinky.

The Impact of Words

This post is about words, and using them to manipulate your environment. Let's start with the very obvious.

How you present something, phrase it and speak it, verbally, is critical. Consider the difference between:
"Most of your presentation was bad"
and
"You had good parts in your presentation, but it seems like the point was missed. Several parts seemed out of place and running your English through a spell checker can make it a hundred times better."

The example above contains the positive and non-confrontational phrasing coupled with positive and constructive criticism. Not to mention flattery. I could have done better, but the point here is that words matter.

How much do they matter, though? Previously, we only touched on that with the significance of pauses in speech.

Have you noticed how you can cause people to think of something, just by mentioning it?
How about by mentioning one thing, they would think of another?
A combination of things, to piece it together in a week?

How about the good ole` "don't think about X" which naturally follows by that person giving X some thought?

One example I learned the hard way was: don't mention the name of the ex to a friend of mine, she will revert back to thinking about him and become depressed. That is one verbal trigger to avoid.

Example one
Let's consider a situation we have all been in at one time or another. A platonic relationship where one side is romantically interested, hinting:
"I am horny, I wish I had someone to have sex with."
Clearly this is extremely obvious as a hint, and poorly constructed, too.

You made the other person think about what your meaning is, and more importantly--consider you.

You most likely failed in persuading them you are a potential romantic interest, unless they were already into you. In which case, you were sending "feelers", or "pinging" if you like, in a manner you can save face with and allow the other side a way out.

Does this get more complex? It does. How? The sky is the limit, but I haven't given it enough thought yet to construct a good thesis.

Example two
Kinesthetic: I feel you are correct. I sense you don't understand.
Visual: I see your point. Can you imagine this?
Auditory: I hear ya. It rhymes!

These are known as learner types, and in NLP as representational systems. From Wikipedia:

Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic

One family of models emphasizes the sensory modalities of informing stimuli. The models in this family may use different terms to describe same or similar learning styles. These models often describe three basic learning styles:

* Auditory learning occurs through hearing the spoken word.
* Kinesthetic learning occurs through doing and interacting.
* Visual learning occurs through looking at images, mindmaps, demonstrations and body language.

In such models, the term multi-modal describes people who have more than one strong learning preference.

Speaking to someone in "their own language" supposedly helps facilitate better communication.

Which are you leaning more toward, or feel most comfortable using? Visual? Auditory? Do you notice what such verbs and adjectives people use?

Note: Although some learning style models are widely used in education, many professionals doubt their validity.

Critiques from Wikipedia:

Cautioning against interpreting neuropsychological research as supporting the applicability of learning style theory, John Geake, Professor of Education at the UK's Oxford Brookes University, and a research collaborator with Oxford University's Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain, commented that

We need to take extreme care when moving from the lab to the classroom. We do remember things visually and aurally, but information isn't defined by how it was received.

Writing in the Times Educational Supplement Magazine (27th July 2007), Susan Greenfield said that "from a neuroscientific point of view [the learning styles approach to teaching] is nonsense".

Example three

In the paper "Ripple Effects in Memory: Judgments of Moral Blame Can Distort Memory for Events" [PDF], in press as "Memory & Cognition", by David A. Pizarro, Cara Laney, Erin K. Morris, & Elizabeth F. Loftus, of the University of California, Irvine, interesting points are made:

"A single piece of false information was presented in a leading question: That the two cars had “smashed” into one another rather than merely hitting each other. This information altered subjects’ memories not only for the speed of the cars when they made contact, but also for related information, such as whether glass was broken in the course of the crash."

Further:

"This “ripple effect,” in which post-event information can influence a range of memories, not simply the specifics targeted with the post-event information, has also been demonstrated in other studies."

Apparently, lawyers make use of this technique ever since. This is covered nicely in the Cognitive Daily blog, here.

A similar study was conducted by Elizabeth Loftus, where she showed subjects a video of a crash and later information caused them to judge the speed differently. This is called the Misinformation effect. This BBC story discusses it. Loftus' original paper can be found here [PDF].

Another study is by Roediger, H.L., Meade, M.L. & Bergman, E. (2001), named "Social contagion of memory" [PDF], published in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

Example four
While I am unsure how much of this makes any sort of sense, it is interesting. "Hidden messages in regular speech". It is however, a bait advertisement for the creator's web site:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7dINpMdMRA&NR=1

They basically claim that "The Interspersal Technique or Embedded Command" is text hidden within text, which gets emphasized in some vocal manner or by tone, so that you hear the significant words only, such as this made up, probably badly constructed example:

"When you come to Buy More, you should check out the special opprtunities. Buy one and get the second free. Come to Buy More, buy three and get the fourth free. Do it now."

In conclusion

Words are significant, and now that I am aware enough of how they can be used and abused, I want to learn even more about them. From phrasing things the right way to appealing for a certain audience by speaking in their language.

One subject matter which could be interesting to study for this is Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP). Aside to subjects such as "Anchoring", it seems to have been developed as a combination of linguistics and psychology, giving hypnotherapists among others, language tools. Note: NLP is not widely respected by psychologists.

When I know more on this subject matter, not necessarily in regard to NLP, I will write about it. One things I am sure about is that verbal communication is far more than just 7% of all communication.

Language is wonderful, and getting better at it in any fashion is satisfying (after the fact).

Pinky.

The Difference Between Communication and Manipulation

I often wonder where the line is; what is the balance between communication and manipulation?

This post is the first in a series which will discuss this difference and how it plays out in different situations. As an introduction, we start with abstract thinking.

One of the byproducts of becoming aware of body language was that I became more aware of my environment, and of myself.

While not able to read others very well, I noticed what I refer to as "way out there" anomalies. These anomalies were gestures and actions that made my subconscious take a step back and shout at my conscious mind "this is not real!". My gut would twist and I'd just know I am being manipulated.

I was being manipulated. I don't consider myself especially naive or gullible, but I've been had.

In some cases, it was a minor incident. But was I just becoming paranoid or was what I saw real?

Medical doctors and psychologists often identify themselves in diseases they read about in class, mental or physical. How could I be sure I was being realistic?

I Googled the subject of manipulation, and didn't make much headway. Most of the hits were about spousal abuse. An interesting rule of thumb to identify abusive relationships caught my eye, as it seemed wrong to me.

If someone is trying to get you to do something with an emotional demand rather than a repciprocal one, they are being manipulative.

They provided with examples:

Manipulative--
If you don't come to my birthday party, I will cry/be upset/hate you/laugh at you with your friends.

"Okay"--
If you come to my birthday party you will eat a most amazing cake.

Life is manipulative and we have different tools we use to communicate with our friends. Honestly, I don't mind if a good friend of mine threatened to be upset.

What this rule of thumb was good for was to easily be able to distinguish between manipulative behavior and communication.

Also, although not necessarily a bad behavior, noticing it is useful in resisting their attempts.

In a broader outlook, it helps with the study of the psyche of those you communicate with. Some folks notice how many "I"'s and "me"'s people use when they speak. I now notice how many statements are emotionl-based appeals with no merits as well as ones meant to make you feel uncomfortable by speaking to your emotions, in contrast to the rest of their requests and statements.

Not taking away from the subject of spousal abuse and its victims, I decided to draw the line wayyy up there above what could possibly be communication.

What are some examples of clearly manipulative behavior I discounted? I will write of these descriptively in the coming weeks. Suffice to say they had to be more than one gesture (a good handshake) to one "scene" (as in a play or a movie, scripted and played out) to count.

The description of this blog is:
Exploring the repertoire of inter-personal relations between communication and manipulation.

The reason for that is that the tools used to manipulate people can also be used to communicate better. The difference is very simple, it is in intent or motive.

What I consider manipulative another may consider good communication, and what they consider manipulative someone else would consider as acceptable. It is about perspective, and that is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

Recently I noticed how I make eye contact, and learned to identify when it is awkward or wanted.

Am I manipulating a person by making eye contact, or simply acting as a good communicator? I believe I am simply communicating, as I do nothing other than chat and not even consider any type of coercion. Someone else, however, can use the exact same tool to manipulate by enabling a person to trust him or her faster as rapport is created.

The truth belongs with every practitioner, as obviously there is no clear ethical guideline which is absolute. the Nazis are often brought up as the one example to absolute morality. I suppose you can contradict my statement with that.

I will wrap up this post, as Godwin's law has been invoked.

Pinky.

Debunking the 55-38-7 Rule

In nearly every book on body language the 55-38-7 rule is mentioned. It is a case of a number or supposed fact being repeated as gospel over the years, copied from copies up to the point where every mention adds credibility, while no one really knows where the original came from or why it is, or isn't, true.

The 55-38-7 rule claims that 55% of all communication is in body language, 38% in tonality and only 7% being verbal--words.

The original research pointing to these numbers was conducted by Albert Mehrabian in the 1960s. He showed that when using very few words (such as lets say, you're welcome, if I am to make up an example at random) the body language and tonality of the person change the meaning of the words completely.

Body language emphasizes and changes the taste of the words, indicating meaning and emotion. It is not a replacement. The rule being generalized to support body language experts and validity is ridiculous at best.

The debunking of the rule (which is still very relevant in the right context) is brilliantly done by Judith E. Pearson in an article which originally appeared in The Toastmaster magazine in January 2006.

You can read her very good article, here:
http://www.hodu.com/rule.shtml

Pinky.

Nature Abhors Vacuum

Nature abhors vacuum, it always seeks to fill it. That is a simplification of physics, but it works.

Taking natural laws and contemplating them in a philosophical manner is sometimes interesting and often silly, but I can't avoid that one. It fits so well.

When in a conversation, do you lean toward the person? Keep your distance and lean back? Face them? These are all basic techniques of creating rapport.

Make eye contact, speak openly, show an open body language.

I can't dispute any of these, except that like all rules of thumb they are only true up to a level. They are what you should aspire to and eventually reach in any conversation, not what you should force.

You don't want to lean in if the other person isn't comfortable and faces away from you or moved back. You do not want to maintain eye contact too much if the other person avoids it continually.

After becoming aware of body language and losing my automotive ability to communicate in a nonverbal manner, I couldn't maintain eye contact. I never had this problem before.

I'd look someone in the eye as I've always done without thinking--think about it--and look away submissively, running with my eyes.

I got my confidence back and eye contact is easy for me again. Only now it is beyond easy, it is a tool of communication. This is when I noticed "The Leaning Game".

Lean in, and if the person in front of you isn't comfortable they'd move or lean back.
Lean back and when comfortable the other person will lean in.
Lean in again, a bit, and they will lean back a bit.
Lean back slightly and you found a comfort zone.
Lean further in when you feel like it, and if comfort is reached the other person will respond accordingly, and mirroring will occur.

1-4 can be repeated several times.

This became an automatic behavior for me, and I was surprised to find it is as subconscious and natural as eye contact has once again become.

Create a vacuum and the other side will want to fill it. A good example is in inter-personal relations. Over-simplifying, if you call less or stop calling a person, then if there is anything there and you weren't just projecting energy into a black hole--they'd call you.

Nature abhors vacuum, and if communication is sought, the other side would fill that vacuum. Finding the balance will increase comfort and facilitate better communication and rapport.

This won't happen if they are onto this being a regular "game" of yours or them not being interested, or feel negatively about it. Then, they may just not be aware it is happening, or care. If they do, you know instantly, even if they don't.

Pinky.

The Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments

Dr. Robert Cialdini mentioned in his book Influence a couple of psychological experiments conducted earlier in the previous century.

The purpose of these experiments aside, it shows how humans can be pushed, as well as made to do things they don't want to at an extreme level. You can skip to the movies linked to below if you like.

The Milgram experiment concentrated on our adherence to authority.

From Wikipedia--

Milgram summarized the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience", writing:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

The Standford Prison experiment, from Wikipedia--

The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The students who were assigned to be the prisoners were paid $15 a day as an incentive, which is worth about $80 per day in 2008 currency.

http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

These experiments speak for themselves, and you can watch them here:

Stanford Prison experiment (watch in order):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o0Nx31yicY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCsgwcIil7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU6r4mNZ8g0

Milgram experiment:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8325294940857002700&q=milgram+experiment&ei=BYlYSNSGPJzG2wKw7ZmADw

And revisited:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

Pinky.

Corporate compliance: War of Attrition

Ever been had by a corporation? I have many stories to tell of being wronged by a large company, whether renting a car or trying to get Google or Facebook to respond, escalating past their corporate drones.

Once you are aware you are being treated unfairly, you can either try and express your discomfort and seek to fix the issue, or move on.

These large corporations would have you go through low level support for hours to days, with no end in sight. You will get the bots to reply in very strict corporate language and speak of policies.

Their strategy is simple. They make you go away.

You can cut through the attrition phase by using a lawyer, in some cases (especially in the States) but otherwise, the spending of time to fight the corporate beast is simply not worth it.

You will get results, but only days later and these will still be a minimum of what yo believe is basic.

Was wasting these days worth it? Probably not. The cost-benefit calculations shows that much.

It is a poor state of affairs, but it is the facts of life. Up the ante with a lawyer, or give it up if you encounter organized, probably barely legal, resistance.

Pinky.

The Seduction Labs Blog: Women Sexual Signals Research and Detecting Lies

Jonathan over at the Seduction Labs blog has frequently interesting and well-researched posts on the subjects of communication, manipulation and body language. We will discuss the seduction and pick up community and their relevance to communication at a later post.

Jonathan is a disbeliever when it comes to body language. I came across his blog when someone linked to me at the post above. Although I mostly buy into his way of thinking, I believe he is a skeptic in nature. While his posts are indeed smart and well written, his insistence on disproving body language in absolute terms makes him biased in a fashion I find distracting from his informative posts.

One of his main tenets is that so-called body language "experts" try and portray this occupation as a science. It isn't. He further states that these experts are there to sell body language as the fad of the month (my wording). I agree on that as well.

These "experts" speak of body language as a science. From my experience, while it can be researched scientifically it is not a science. There is quite a bit behind nonverbal communication, reading it and interpreting it. Not reading too much into it by over-analyzing is where things get tricky, but that's a discussion for another time.

The philosophy of science is an interesting and complex subject, but in short, according to Newton, Hume and Popper, based on repeatable experiments you deduce a rule which best fits the facts, until it is disproved with an example with doesn't fit, and then it is replaced/supplemented with a new, more accurate one.

Body language as portrayed by these experts simply does not meet that criterion. While claiming close to absolute rules, they very comfortably jump to quote Freud when things don't add up: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar".

While some nonverbal cues and signals are universal, most are situation and person dependent. One must establish a baseline for a person and then use body language as an extra sense, adding taste and efficiency to communication rather than replacing it.

While I agree with the sentiment behind Freud's very astute quote, it is being abused.
Once you encounter a situation a rule does not cover, the rule can not be kept as-is. Ignoring the new information and using Freud as an excuse is basically asking for suspended disbelief, and we have enough of that from Hollywood.

Body language is real, but let's look at it with the right perspective:

1. People do give impressions of emotions. I rather look at it as gestures and tone, for example, rather than an aura or emphatic telepathy.

2. While not all gestures apply to everybody, people do communicate with their bodies.

3. If people did not communicate with their bodies, others still deduce about what they may be communicating based on their body language.

4. Body language does indicate, to a varying degree, our state of mind and feelings in a closed feedback loop (you smile when you are happy. You are happy when you smile).

In his post linked to above, he points to a paper "Decoding Women’s Sexual Intent" (Coreen Farris, Coreen Farris, Teresa A. Treat, Richard J. Viken, and Richard M. McFall, published April 2008 in Psychological Science). While he brings good ideas to the table, in my opinion he is misreading the paper which clearly states these signals are there, just not being interpreted well... But we can discuss that on another occasion. :)

I strongly recommend reading Jonathan's posts, but I'd really like to hear more of what he finds does work when it comes to body language.

One example which he shared, is on the difficult subject of lie detection. Lie detection is very intriguing and the history behind it alone can keep me alert for hours. In this post Jonathan doesn't cover much of how the methods he sees as inferior work and fail, but he does mention an interesting pscyhological alternative: Reality monitoring theory.

Among others, he bases himself on A. Vrij (Aldert Vrij, but he is an academic). This is very telling as to the quality of the research and his posts.

Pinky.

Social proof can save your life

Back when I read Robert Cialdini's book Influence, he discussed a paper which showed how two drivers who happen to change lanes at the same time can cause many drivers to follow suit. These other drivers think there is a special reason why the first cars changed lanes, such as spotting a driving hazard or seeing the other lane is free. That potentially also endangers others on the road, aside to leading them on.

This of course was given as an example of when social proof goes wrong. A theme through his book is that these "tools of influence", such as social proof, are very useful outside of the potential for their abuse.

In today's busy world, surrounded by clatter and numerous micro decisions, a concept such as social proof can be very useful. "Everyone buys these shoes, they must be better. Or at least well liked."

This of course leads to "If that guy can go through that red light, maybe he knows something I don't and it's not working. Or.. maybe they don't ticket you here. I should follow."

And finally to "Oh! You mean everyone else jumps off the roof? I must do that too!" :)

While driving a few days ago I noticed that the other cars at the intersection were not advancing. I slowed down and a police car buzzed by at incredible speed. I would have seen it a couple of seconds later, but social proof did potentially save my life.

This happened to me before. I would notice people driving strange, or changing lanes. Sometimes I'd follow. Other times I'd deduce it is pointless, silly or dangerous. But ever since this police car incident I watch the cars around me far more closely.

Rather than look at individual cars and the psychology of their drivers to try and figure out when a car is going to cut me, I now also consciously and regularly watch for car group psychology.

As a general rule, when group psychology comes into play on the road, keep your distance.

If I spot nothing wrong other than a snowball effect of people stopping/acting stange, I can always just pass them, leading the way. Letting them eat my dust. :)

Anyone has any idea what that paper on driving psychology and social proof was? Any other pointers?

Pinky.

Here, take a Dollar

Last July I was attending Comic-con along with about 125 thousand other geeks.

Walking to the con I noticed casually dressed individuals who were a little too strict in their posture. More importantly, their faces were completely covered by exagerated makeup, even for clowns, which they now were.

More over, they were holding Dollar bills in their hands.

First time around the guy tried to hand me a flier. He tried to convince me to come to a meeting, to listen. Then when I refused he tried to hand me a Dollar bill.

The second encounter I actually went to the guy and asked who they were, he handed me the flier which had Uncle Sam in clown make up. Join the army they said? :)

This guy, however, started by trying to hand me the Dollar bill to begin with.

Back then it seemed rather pathetic to me that they would try to recruit people in that manner. What is that Dollar bill supposed to be for? Attracting attention? Helping the poor? Getting a taxi ride? Come on!

Yesterday I recounted the story with some friends, only now I realized that while the above may be true, what they did was using the compliance tool called reciprocation. As they hand people Dollar bills, people who take them would feel obilgated to return the favor by at least showing up to their recruitment meeting, or listening to their pitch.

Me? Anyone hands me free money I wouldn't touch it and run in the other direction.

Pinky.

NLP in Sport ?

Watching the UEFA Champions League Final -Manchester vs Chelsea, I noticed something interesting.

(a proper disclosure - I rarely watch sport matches, probably not more then 2-3 times a year :) )

A short brief, for those who didn't watch the game:
The match was to be decided with a penalties shoot-out after 120 minutes of playing and a score of 1:1 on the board. There is a draw in the first 10 kicks (5 for each team), We are at the stage when every kick means winning or loosing...

The kicker is Anelka from Chelsea and the goalkeeper - Van Der Sar from Manchester, the tense is at peak, and just when Anelka is about to kick, Van Der Sar does something that alerted my senses: momentarily, he points his hand to the right , as if he signals Anelka, "I know you are going to kick that way".
Anelka kicks to the left side and Van Der Sar "surprisingly" bets and jumps to this side, pushing the ball away.. the match is over, Manchester United wins.

Many would say it's just a coincidence, I rather believe it's not.

It is well known that just before penalty kick, goalkeepers jumps several times in order to destruct the kicker's attention. I think that Van Der Sar just upgraded the system - pointing one way, thus leading the player's subconscious to kick the other direction.

And a small anecdote for closure : I was "youtubing" for about an hour to find a video of the penalties with decent resolution, with no luck. Only after googeling it a bit more ,I managed to find one, interestingly, having this title: "Van Der Sar pointing".

Yeahhh! I am not alone! :)

Sir Lancelot

When first becoming aware of body language

Reading body language is natural, "we all do it". As babies we liked smiling faces better and as adults we read an "aura" or "state of mind" from people we interact with. We are good at it.

In extreme opposite is interpreting body language and being aware of doing so. Most people are not good at it, in fact, they are very poor in this regard.

I used to be of the second type. Over time I collected references to body language, from "the smile didn't reach his eyes" in books I read, wondering what it meant, to hearing about "crossed arms means the person is closed to you". These references didn't mean much until at some point I accumulated so many it reached critical mass.

Suddenly I was aware of body language, and boy was I confused. I kept being self-conscious, as I didn't know what was right. Up to that point some invisible layer worked its black box magic in front of my cognitive system. I reacted to people and what I felt from them, but I didn't know much more.

This previous behaviour caused me to be polarizing. I would notice a person being cold or impatient and would read it as they not liking me or being snobs. I'd return the favour even if they were just busy or tired at the time. On the other extreme end I'd not be able to understand a certain someone doesn't like me if I was previously convinced they are my friends. People who were cool to me, I was cool to. As a personal disclaimer, this statement is over-simplifying and explained in extremes. I may be an extreme person, but I am a person.

Suddenly my "system", not polarizing for several years now, was gone. Becoming aware of body language made me continually self-conscious. Here is an example story.

I was in an informal meeting with a high level non-politician foreign government official when I caught myself leg over leg (in the so called "number 4" position), hands interlaced behind my head. I stopped dead--is this what I am supposed to project? What am I projecting anyway?

I immediately dropped to a reset position. Legs on the floor, hands on legs. But wait.... how am I supposed to sit down? Non of it made sense, I had zero knowledge to back my new-found awareness.

Then, of course... what of the person opposite me? I didn't even consider his body language.

I landed in the States and went to a Barnes & Noble to look for a body language book. I got to the self-help section and tried to find any book not promising endless sex or immediate success in business. Eventually I came across my first body language book, The Definitive Book of Body Language by Barbara and Allan Pease.

The book helped me in three significant fashions.

In its view, body language is indeed a language and requires content as well as context. For a sentence to make sense, one word such as "sofa" wouldn't help. "Sofa" and "living room", would help. Adding the word "new" would add context for us to make sense of the sentence. Like they teach in math lessons in school, two to three points for drawing a line.

In "professional" language these combinations of body language signals are called "clusters". A person just crossing their hands may mean nothing, or everything. Clusters of signals tell us what it is all about. Another consideration is watching for such signals and clusters chronologically, over time.

One signal or gesture could mean a person is cold or any other mundane reason. Freud was notorious for smoking Cigars. Cigars being clear Phallic (or sexual) symbols, his students mentioned it to him. His reply was "sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar," hence the known quotation.

The second significant point that I learned from the book was how body language is a closed feedback loop of emotions. This is best demonstrated with smiles. If you feel good you often smile. When you smile you will feel good.

In this fashion I was able to literally catch myself with, say, crossed hands. Then ask: Am I somehow defensive or uncomfortable? The growth in personal awareness and being in touch with one's feelings is impressive.

The third point of significance hit me when I travelled. I hit up a conversation with an older business man in the airport lounge. He told me how he is not very aware of the body language issue, but he did notice how body language can be useful in negotiations.

If he wants to convey dismay, instead of verbalizing it and moving the negotiation to it, he simply crosses his hands, maybe leans back. The other side gets the idea.

An unrelated point I learned from the book changed my life, it taught me how to identify fake smiles. While I am not yet very good at it, it means I no longer just fall stupidly for any girl who smiles my way.

The book itself was easily readable, and interesting. It was disturbing how the authors just name-dropped researchers with no standard of academic quotation, continually. The contribution the book gave me was not in being able to read body language, as I wasn't.

The contribution was that while reading about it, I thought about it in a framed fashion and the automagical awareness module to read and respond to body language unconsciously, came back. I then started the long journey to learn and understand my surrounding and non-verbal communication, on which I will write another time.

Two weeks ago I spoke with an old friend and he disagreed with my being the second type of person, the unaware one. He reminded me of how in our phone conversations I cued on every pause and asked him about it. A girlfriend of mine also didn't agree. She suggested I was always aware, just didn't realize what it means.

Awareness followed by unsettled disquiet followed by understanding.

Pinky.

Hand pointing

Trying to keep a person's interest we sometimes momentarily move or point our hands in their general direction, grabbing their eyes and attention. At times, we will even very briefly touch them as a part of that movement for the same purpose, probably on their arms.

Yesterday I was in a more... contemplating mood. I let others speak more, and kept my peace. I let myself listen and my eyes wondered away. As a result, I was touched in that manner by two different people, several times.

As a result I gave them more attention, and knew they are interested in the conversation with me.

Pinky.

Hobgoblins of the mind: Social proof and commitments in email

Yesterday I recieved a request by some whats-their-name publication to write a 700 words column for them. They introduced a time constraint to make the request seem more important (but not too urgent, to avoid seeming desperate).

Being with a full schedule, I cordially responded and asked for a time-frame, as I don't necessarily have the time to commit. They responded with two weeks, a good time frame although from past experience two weeks usually means six to eight available (time) for the editors.

Payment was not mentioned, so this is a pro-bono thang. I never heard of them before so wasn't in much of a hurry to commit time I don't have out of my "lazy time" allocation.

They mentioned others who write for them on the subject, and that they want to publish these, now blogs, together. I looked at the names and recognized a couple. One worked for the Whitehouse and the other for a known entity.

I wasn't too impressed, but that bit is what tipped the scale and caused me to say yes. Once I said yes I am committed.. You know how silly humans are about holding up to their commitments and staying consistent? I am worse. Usually that is a good thing, but it is also a compliance tool to get a yes out of people.

The names at the footer of the email message made me accept the publication as worthy, social proof 101.

I am committed. Or am I?

Emailing the guy back I luckily asked for the subjects on which these others are writing on, so we can avoid over-lap and "get some ideas". I haven't heard back yet.

I may have been had, but at least I wasn't automatic in my response. These names writing there means little to me. I have something I am unsure on where to publish and like to help smaller publications, so their what's their name publication is as good as any--if they show me they are serious rather than avoid the subject of subjects.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Suggested reading is once again Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.

Pinky.

Update:
They got back to me, two weeks later. They asked for when I will be able to submit my text.

I asked them about my question.. what these other authors are writing about, so I can avoid duplication and get ideas.

Their reply was that it was confidential, and that it is their job as editors to avoid such problems.

Logical flaws aside, and my willingness to write for a small publication ignored... If I write for these people they will just use my name when talking to others, to get them to write for them. Heck, they probably did already.

Ini mini miny moe

Eating pizza and waiting for my flight to Europe, I observed a European family at a nearby table. The mother, grandmother and three small children were playing a repetitive “word and clap” game which triggered a childhood memory of a similar game, although in a different language.

From Yahoo! answers:
“Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, which can be spelled a number of ways, is a children's counting rhyme, used to select "it" for games and similar purposes. The rhyme has been around in various forms since the 1850s or earlier, and is common today in many countries. Since many similar counting rhymes existed earlier, it is difficult to ascertain its exact origin.”

Sitting in a circle, they each put their hands on top of the hands of the people to their right and left, palm up.

The song was simplistic, and with every word or syllable they rhymed one would “tag” the next person in line by clapping their own left hand with their left (momentarily removed from on top of the hand of the person to their right).

Whoever started the tagging was also the last to be tagged. The rhyme is known by heart by everyone at the circle, and yet, the kids were occasionally caught off-guard.

The song being very rhythmical and in sync with the clapping creates a pattern which is hard to break, programming the players to keep clapping and singing rather than escape the final “winning” tag.

Watching the children fall for this immediately after reading Robert Cialdini's book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion made me realize just how much humans are creatures of habit, and of how the same type of behaviour can be observed with adults playing the game of life.

Pinky.

I'm interested, but in you

Walking happily in the mall carrying my brand new Mac, a salesgirl caught my eyes and asked me to come over.

I walked closer stating clearly "I will come over, but I don't want to waste your time. I'm not buying anything." She was happy for me to approach regardless, smiling. I think I smiled back.

As soon as I got near the stand, she took my hand, kindly (felt nice) but firmly, and led me closer, turning me toward the stand and her. I was keenly aware of how this hand-hold made my body automagically follow her and of how breaking physical contact is difficult.

The salesgirl began to slowly fold the sleeve on the hand she held, probably preparing me to smell something, still touching my hand as she chatted me up. "Why do you have a Black Hat shirt but no black hat?"

I decided being nice and letting her flow with our chemistry, manufactured or not, is more than okay. How to simplify the answer though?

"I'm a hacker" *smile*

At this point, sleeve pulled back and hands removed she tried to convince me to try something on, I considered the "I'm allergic" excuse, but saw no reason to lie "Thank you, but I am not interested." I said with a finality.

"You bought a laptop?"
"Yes, just got out of the Apple store." Which incidentally, is right in front of the stand, and I was carrying the laptop case.
"Have you ever been stuck at an airport for like eight hours? What do you do for so long? Me it just drives nuts."
Raising my eye-brow but not missing a beat, showing real interest, I replied "I was once in London for six hours, I went to the center, ate lunch, and got back just in time for my flight."
"Yes," she said, slightly pouting "but what if you are stuck there for eight hours with nothing to do, what do you do then?"

When she left my hand alone. I waited a bit, and slowly started pulling my sleeve down while talking.

"It is always fun to get out of the airport and explore."
"Always?" she insisted.
"Sleep works. I really hate the Frankfurt airport, and there is nothing to do in Frankfurt." I rolled up my eyes "I was once stuck there for ten hours and just went to sleep."
"The laptop must help" she offered.
"Why, of course! The first thing I do when I get to the airport is look for food," *pause* "Obviously" *smile* "Then I start looking for a power socket for my laptop".

She tried again.
"How about this here..."
"I am not interested in creams."
"Ah, this is for your nails." *smile*
"Thanks, no." *smile*

Maybe my smile was an invitation incongruent to my verbal negation, but she kept going. When someone smiles at you--you often smile back whether you know it or not.

"Are you interested in me," *very slight pause* "showing you this here?" *smile*
I considered saying yes again and the allergic excuse tried to pop up, then with a large smile filling me and my face I heartily responded "I am interested in you, *slight pause* "not what you offer." *big smile* "But thank you so much."

Usually I'd not refuse, but I am not going to buy anything so why waste her sales time?

*Almost awkward pause* I followed up.

"You are good. If I was not aware of what you are doing, building rapport, you'd have me wrapped around your finger by now."
"Thanks, tell that to my boss." Who she pointed to. He was very interested in our conversation through-out, although he maintained his distance.

I half turned to go, and looking back from my shoulder "Can I ask you guys a quick question?"
"Sure" she said. She was still looking at me and nice, but not as excited and slightly pouting.

"Well," I began "again, you are very good, but did anyone teach you..."
She softly cut in "The story was true."
"I am sure it was," *smile* "but before you had your own story, did anyone teach you an example story to use?"
"No," she said "it's all mine." at this point the boss was also in the conversation, although he never really spoke. He leaned in and had his half smile of amusement and interest changed to one of interest and sarcasm.

I took my cue, thanked them both, and left.

Four points:
1. Holding my hand (shaking it then not leaving?) gave her control over me to make sure I stayed and move me around. It made us closer instantly. Maintaining touch opened me to her approach and made sure I listened. Even with the real-time analysis of what she was doing, it was slightly difficult for me to not do whatever she asks.

Powerless to stop it or not, me "letting" her fold my sleeve, although done slowly while keeping eye contact with me (so that I barely notice), implies that I already showed interest in what she offers. Regardless of me clearly stating otherwise. Having done that, why not try some perfume? It would be silly to roll the sleeve back down without trying, right?

2. She attempted to create rapport with me by speaking about my Black Hat shirt. I let her, but did not agree to buy. She may not have known much about hacking, decided I required a more intelligent approach or chose to use a different story to create more rapport.

Picking on another environmental cue, she spoke of my new laptop with the airport story. Perhaps my accent helped her spot me as a foreigner, but a separate story helped us feel more familiar with each other and took longer to explore.

3. When I said I am not interested in creams, she immediately disarmed me with "nails". This took me back a moment as I am a guy, and not a very beauty-aware one.

It was a nice and natural way to change the subject and kill my objection--what she said (nails) wasn't as important as this negation (don't worry). In my case though it wasn't the best approach--Especially as I didn't shave in two weeks. It should have screamed at her.

4. Although said in a flirtatious manner and not offensive, my "I'm interested in you, not what you sell" was a carbon copy of her disarming techniques. She couldn't break rapport, especially since I kept the chat with a smile after that.

Turning to leave then staying, but talking almost as in an after-thought without facing her, made her feel she isn't stuck with me and allowed me to explore her sales techniques without being too threatening, especially as I am four times her size. She probably lied, though.

All-in-all, it was a fun conversation and I didn't waste more than two or three minutes of her time. I didn't realize I could analyze her sale so easily. I can't wait to try this again in a year when I know more and see what I spot then.

Perhaps with a more advanced sales person such as an insurance agent, who will be more sophisticated. Seeing my progress is a big boost to my enthusiasm.

Pinky.

Obama stressed?

Body language experts often analyze politicians' body language on television. In Body language books and training, politicians' pictures are examined. It is a hobby of many, as politicians are coached in body language and catching them is considered fun, as well as useful for air time in a talk show.

Being in the States quite often, I get exposed to local politicians. With the upcoming elections it is impossible to avoid.

I haven't made much of an attempt to read their body language until recently, although they seem very schooled in what they do. They use open gestures, a good posture, maintain eye contact with the crowd, move around so people maintain eyes on them, etc.

Obama is said to be very schooled in body language. It may be true. I can easily spot Hillary Clinton somewhat "trying" to control her body language, acting it, while Barack Obama seems to become it (except for giving a feeling of aloofness and his suit being a bit too big for him - maybe that neckline? I can't quite place it).

Because Obama is apparently so good at displaying cool, and sure, body language, as well as mastered how he approaches speaking to crowds, today's blip was so obvious.

He is handling damage control, after being assaulted by the press and his opponents for using "insensible" words when speaking of small towns' people.

While addressing the subject today, he maintained his usual body language. He failed completely on tonality. He made so many speech errors that it was embarrassing--but only because he usually is really good at being clear. Every speech is probably memorized and rehearsed, maybe he even thinks the words before uttering them. He regularly does pace himself.

He repeatedly used 'ah' as a filler when he paused for thought--strike that, he paused for thought which I haven't observed before. He stopped in mid-sentence and started over or clarified. Once, he even stuttered at the beginning of a sentence.

Is this stress or just regular talking? "Pulling words" out as in regular discussion rather than rehearsed speeches?

Due to his usual elegance this was very noticeable, at least to me.

Pinky.

Out for a steak: Jane the Ripper

Sitting at the restaurant waiting for our steak, I noticed the couple sitting next to us.

The woman, sitting on the "couch" against the wall I didn't even notice at the time. The guy, sitting opposite her on a chair stood out. His body language was extremely animated, he gestured with his hands enthusiastically, waving them in front of his face, leaning toward the woman.

Next, I did notice the woman. She was sitting straight, back to the wall. The asymmetry of him leaning in and her leaning back (as far as she could with the wall at her back) just screamed at me. As if joking I said to my friends: "he sure isn't getting any tonight". My friends, though, weren't sure if this was even a date.

During the course of our meal, I looked to the couple a few more times, noticing more. The woman, Hands lying on her lap, fingers interlaced half-way. Legs crossed. Was she thinking/considering or purely in a closed position? It almost seemed like she was trying to keep her patience.

At some point her head moved forward, perhaps she opened to the guy slightly, or maybe she was just trying to figure something out. The guy, completely oblivious to her body language just kept trying very hard. Silence may have been a better strategy.

Later on, I noticed the guy still leaning in, excited and animated as ever. The woman's body language was escalating negatively: she was leaning back against the wall as far as she could, her hands were slowly becoming fully crossed and being crossed-legged, she was moving her foot at an increasingly fast rate. It was like watching a car accident. It was like halos of hellish fire and heavenly blue fighting each other in between the two like in paintings of demons and angels.

The steaks were long gone when we heard a raised tone from the woman "we are not discussing that!"--I guess they knew each other for more than just some date.

I felt like combustion was imminent, her foot creating a whirlwind under the table and her body becoming stiffer than ever. Her voice, which we did not hear before, was now matching tone to body language.

"We better get out of here before the table next to us explodes" I mused. We paid the bill and apparently ran out just in time as we could hear explosions behind us.

This was one of my first conscious continual reading of body language, and I am very happy about it, obvious as it may have been. I could not see her face but apparently, her body was very good at communicating displeasure, impatience and maybe even hate.

Pinky.

Oil traders sign language

A friend just brought this URL to my attention. Apparently oil traders have special body language of signals and shouts, which is a limited sign language by itself.

You can view a flash demonstration of the signals by Raymond Carbone at the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/07/opinion/20080407_TRADING_GRAPHIC.html

It reminds me of the sign language soldiers use to speak with each other on the field. You can read more on that one in FM 21-60. Visual Signals [PDF], also here and here. As far as the American military goes, anyway. Also, take into consideration this doesn't include all known signs, and if taking soldiers from different units differences in meaning/interpretation and implementation are likely.

Pinky.

Airport security: I caught myself lying with NLP

Sitting at the airport lounge, I am excited to write I caught myself lying using NLP and eye movement. I am not an NLP expert, nor do I know much about NLP.

At the airport, I kept trying to convince myself to stand in place, stop fidgeting and look in control. I kept wanting to walk around and bounce--I was bored. Usually I wouldn't care much, but studying body language has made me aware, whether I know what "they" are looking for or not. I tried to convince myself fidgeting is a good thing, but I doubt that. I ended up chatting on Gtalk on my Blackberry.

When finally speaking with the security screener (selector?), a cute blonde, she asked me about who packed my bags and where they have been since. She questioned me further on books I got and asked: "who bought them?"

Being especially bored I said: "me" and quickly added "one was a gift", which I thought would add to my credibility due to the full disclosure attitude I kept throughout (to a level of being ridiculous). This is probably silly.

I didn't get any gifts while here, but having been through airport security hundreds of times I decided to be a bit interesting. I always get "randomly selected" anyway, and I keep wanting to figure out exactly how they screen me (individual skills as well as training varies in different countries), and this is Europe so I am not really concerned.

She followed up by asking: "who bought the gift for you?"

I visited a girlfriend here, so when thinking about who may have gotten it for me I answered, perhaps a bit too slowly, "a girlfriend".

I caught my eyes looking to my right just before answering the question! I have seen the NLP eye-direction diagrams (link to image from lifetrainingonline.com lie detection manual "How to Read People: Detecting Lies") one too many times not to stop and wonder whether NLP says I am lying.

Apparently, looking to the right (my right) means I am being creative, auditory or visually. To the left is recalling. It is much more complicated than that, but that's the basics, misleading as they may be.

I did have a girlfriend here who I visited, and I did buy stuff with her. She just didn't buy me the book. Meaning--although barely noticing it, I lied and caught on to the eye-movement which proves it. I am so proud of myself!

I did not get "randomly selected" and everything went fine. She did not press me further nor ask anything else. I guess I know airport security by now and did pretty well, especially as I have nothing to hide. But I did run to check the Internet and find an NLP eye movement diagram. :)

On another note, apparently being left-handed impacts the eye direction (flips it around), the airport security screeners do ask you for your passport, so they can theoretically watch for which hand you use to give it to them. :)

And of course, I make a very poor liar, which NLP verifies. Whether the airport security looks for it, or not.

Note to the wise: this is a one-time case-study, I did not test myself scientifically or otherwise to see if this is reproducible. Not yet.

Pinky.

Poker & Body Language

When my great friend and mighty conquerer, Pinky, was busy practicing body language methods on his girl, I was trying to outsmart my friends in the medieval game - Poker, "Texas hold 'em" to be precise...

Though I spent countless years sitting behind a round table, this game caught me off-guard. I have to admit, it's my first and a half try in this game, given the first half was in a bachelor's party when my blood was toxic of alcohol :)

The competition was evenly spread, ranging from a grand master, Sir Galahad, whom brought the unique (and as I later discovered, EXTREMELY expensive) chips, all the way to my lovely princess for whom it was the first table game ever.

Armed with my royal body language skills (I wish it was a flush) I have tried to go with a double strategy: First, learning each player's unique body language in different situations. Second, trying to control and observe my own body language, in an effort to convey some false leads when needed.

On the second round, I lost almost half of my chips to the amazing princess... I was not alone. Even Sir Galahad fell right in the net. Then I realized 2 things:

A - I am an idiot, risking so much, so soon and so fast.
B - Interpreting body language requires you to first learn what is the normative behavior and then search for "anomalies". It sounds obvious, (Pinky and I discussed this last week and called the procedure of observing "baselining") but it's rather complicated analyzing 5 people at once, scrutinizing each expression and creating a baseline for every one.

To make a short story even shorter, me and Sir Galahad were the last players at the table, Galahad with 6 times more chips than me. Time was of the essence, so each round was "all-in" with Galahad wining just after I reduced his lead to a 2:1 chips ratio.

Strategically speaking : I tend to attribute my relative success mainly to the second strategy. Apparently, controlling your own body language, once you are aware of certain things, is pretty convincing to the untrained eye.

Regarding the first strategy of learning my fellow knights body language, only partial success could be claimed here. Two were fairly "convenient" to understand, one was more puzzling and the other two were hard nuts to crack.

Well, this post was way longer than expected, but I am happy it was completed at last.

Disclaimer: I am not a native English writer/speaker/whatever, so bare with me, and if you can't then you are welcome to write to DKDC@DKDC.com :)

Sir Lancelot.

Out with a girl showing closed body language

I was out with a girlfriend today who continually displayed closed body language--crossed hands and legs, somewhat stiff and closed in on herself. I assumed this means she is closed to me.

In my head, during awkward pauses, I went through what this body language projection may mean, from feeling unsure to pure hate. It impacted my normal social behavior by making me selfconscious and thus on occasion, socially awkward (which led to the pauses).

After spending the whole day and evening with her I decided to take the plunge and when I felt energetic and excited, I went with it--ignoring my concerns. This outgoing behavior resulted in her being a bit energetic herself and smiling more. She still kept the closed body language, though.

She is a great girl, but somewhat closed and private in general--which means a baseline for her behavior had to be created first, taking her closed tendencies into account. How far does that extend, though?

Frustrated, I realized that something is off, so I openly spoke with her on the subject of body language and asked what's up. Why would she spend so much time with me and enjoy herself yet remain closed?

I brought it into the conversation, and she said that she was cold. Weather cold (chilly) rather than behaviorally. Talk about ASSumptions!

Chatting with Lancelot, my valiant co-blogger, we realized that closed body language does not necessarily mean a closed attitude, environmental factors may come into play ranging from just being cold to having the flu. :)

Now that I know to look for it, I can try and ascertain if there are other reasons for such behavior, meaning. Is the person in front of me cold? As to other reasons, I don't know what they are yet. I do know that if someone is closed to me I am going to try and verify if they are indeed closed by being more friendly, leaning in, getting closer. Observing their response.

Then, if they are open to my approaches and attempts (and maintain their body language over time rather than open up), I will try to figure out what's wrong, perhaps by simply asking "are you cold?" or "isn't it chilly in here?" and see how that works. Like in Quantum mechanics, perhaps one needs to watch for a lot of factors--being cold being just one of them--but even just knowing one needs to further examine closeness signals before coming to final encounter conclusions is critical.

The reason for this approach as opposed to trying to open up people with closed body language is in application rather than method--they do respond to your attempts, but don't open up.

In other words:
if (language.situation==closed)
{
try_ping_approach;
}

Full disclosure note: she always kept her legs crossed in a closed position--away from me, but I did not figure that one out as of yet, except that indeed "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". Body language is a closed feedback loop, impacting feelings much like emotions impact it, so such patterns are negative for interactions regardless.

On another note, after speaking with her on body language I "pinged" her (probed, sent feelers, watching for a "pong") for her closeness by speaking of handshakes and how she can do better. I demonstrated, taking her hand quite a few times, to which she was very receptive. Thinking back it was a good way to test the situation.

I decided to study a couple of simple palm reading tricks, as it could be very useful in such situations, and be a neat party trick to chat up girls, to boot.

Misreading of body language can bring about negative results, so periodic generic pings of going with what you feel seems like a good idea.

Pinky.