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.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, June 20, 2008
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:
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:
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:
Further:
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
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.
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.
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--
The Standford Prison experiment, from Wikipedia--
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, June 9, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)