Nonverbal communication tips?

placidfox52 said:Nonverbal cues matter, but context is everything. If someone tells you "I love you" while staring blankly at the TV, that 7% rule definitely applies—maybe even less. 😁 When the body language doesn't match the words, it’s hard to buy what they're saying, right?

Almost missed this one. Yeah, your point stands, and there are plenty of examples like it.

But look at it this way: if the person receiving the message takes it at face value, regardless of the tone, that message carries much more weight for them than it does for the sender. You end up with a misunderstanding that needs fixing. How do you fix it? With actual words. In this case, verbal communication acts as the damage control for the nonverbal slip-up. That's my point, and it applies to pretty much any scenario.

placidfox52 said:That link I shared at the very beginning? It’s actually quite fascinating. It really illustrates the other side of the coin—that different context where words themselves become the most important factor. Here it is: http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/oestreich_h/...%20Article.doc
Picture this scenario: you’re seated at the negotiation table across from Slobodan Maddox, trying to hammer out the future of Mexico. You lean in, wearing your most disarming smile and adopting the softest, most diplomatic tone imaginable, and you casually mention that your country supports "independence" for Mexico. It isn't a slip of the tongue; it's a tactical error. You chose the word "independence" instead of "autonomy." To anyone actually trained in the art of diplomacy, those two terms aren't even in the same zip code. By saying "independence," you've signaled that you want Mexico to stand as its own sovereign nation, entirely severed from America. It doesn't matter how charmingly you delivered the line or how much you tried to soften the blow with polite gestures. That one specific word carries enough weight to slam the door shut on any further meaningful negotiations regarding the matter. Once that's out there, the conversation is effectively over.

All things considered, it really comes down to this: non-verbal cues—specifically body language and tone of voice—don't just exist alongside verbal communication; they complete it. One cannot function effectively without the other.

If I were to read between the lines—looking at the nonverbal cues here—I’d say that whoever dropped that line to Slobodan Maddox clearly knew exactly what "independence" implied in this specific context. It was a calculated move. Honestly, they don't seem particularly worried about upsetting Slobodan or risking him walking out on the negotiations. They're playing it cool, almost like they've already accounted for the fallout.

Anthony Harris14 said:Looking at the subtext here, whoever said that to Slobodan Maddox clearly knew exactly what "independence" meant in this context. They didn't seem particularly worried about upsetting him or causing him to walk away from the negotiating table.

Objection, your honor. That's pure speculation...

ironcyclist78 said:Objection, Your Honor! Purely speculative...

Objection sustained—though perhaps he’s just acting for the cameras...😁

Anthony Harris14 said:Objection sustained—maybe he's just acting like it hurts...😁

Heh. Nuance isn't just for painters. You were actually spot on, but... (more to follow once we receive your formal written request)

submitted via written request to👋

...But that doesn't mean Oestreich, the author of that piece, is automatically wrong. If someone sits down for a chat with Slobodan Maddox without having any clue about the actual complexity of the situation in Mexico, doista they might drop a total heresy regarding Maddox—something like independence. You laid out the premise well, but you didn't actually prove anything. You assumed a possibility and interpreted it through your own lens, which is fine. But what's the end result?

It’s the same logic I’d use to trip myself up. My own experiences that made me skeptical of non-verbal communication aren't enough to dismantle the entire theory behind it, right? Generally speaking, it isn't even enough that linguistics, by its strict definitions, doesn't explicitly validate the importance of such cues. But
then again, simply "being right" isn't always enough to establish your own truth or dismantle someone else's argument.

And so... you mentioned another interesting point earlier. I didn't quote it, but it's interesting enough that I'm just waiting for the right moment to turn it to my advantage (he he).

ironcyclist78 said:...And so... you mentioned another interesting point earlier—one I didn't actually quote, but it’s just intriguing enough that I’m waiting for the right moment to twist it to my own advantage (heh).

Please, please,🎉

Generally speaking, I suspect that whether one should prioritize non-verbal cues over verbal communication really just boils down to the specific situation and the broader context at hand.

Anthony Harris14 said:Please, please🎉

Generally speaking, I think prioritizing nonverbal cues over verbal ones depends entirely on the specific situation and the context at hand.

That smiley face is a nice touch. I’m not sure what it’s meant to convey, but it’s cute.

Yeah, exactly—that’s what I was just talking about regarding what you just mentioned. Remember, you also said this:

Nonverbal communication has its place; in certain scenarios, it provides more info than words, but it all boils down to the context. It will remain just as vital today as it was 100 or even 1,000 years ago.

I completely agree with your first point. In fact, there are cases where mastering nonverbal cues is a matter of life and death—think tactical military operations.

As for your second sentence, I’ll take it and run with it: yes, it will be important, but how important? In my own small way, I’d argue that nonverbal communication wasn't actually as dominant 100 or 1,000 years ago as people claim it is now. Looking at historical patterns, it’s always been relevant, but generally, it hasn't outpaced verbal communication. Okay, I’m generalizing now (and I usually hate when people do that, so feel free to call me out). I get the impression there’s a modern push to put nonverbal cues on a pedestal they haven't earned. Ultimately, I might agree with Quinn regarding "proportional" importance.

And I’m fully on board with your final thought, especially since it’s much more precise than the other sentence I just dissected. From my perspective, that’s a fair way to look at it.

Did Neanderthals rely on more sophisticated nonverbal communication since they lacked spoken language?
That’s actually a fascinating question...

nimbletrucker9 said:Did Neanderthals have more sophisticated non-verbal communication since they lacked everything else?
That’s an interesting one..

It crossed my mind too. Does anyone actually have an answer—and I mean a smart one, not just some random guess from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about?

ironcyclist78 said:Look, I actually had the same thought. Does anyone have a real answer here? And I mean a smart one—is the author actually being intelligent, or just acting smart to cover up how clueless they really are?

-hm, let's see if you can even wrap your head around a smart response.😛

nimbletrucker9 said:Did Neanderthals have more sophisticated non-verbal communication since they lacked everything else?
Now, that is an intriguing little question...

if you go by various computer models and gaming simulations involving Neanderthals and their ilk, it appears that😕 🙄

Hey everyone. Just wanted to brag a bit. I finally turned in my senior thesis and the professor told me it was one of the best papers she’s ever graded. 😎 😎

Anyway, diving into nonverbal communication research taught me a ton and helped me find some killer sources. If anyone actually wants to geek out on this topic, hit me up—I'm officially a "genius" now. Or at least a little bit smarter. 😁

nimbletrucker9 said:Did Neanderthals have more sophisticated non-verbal communication since they lacked spoken language?
That is actually a fascinating question to ponder...

They relied almost entirely on non-verbal cues, much like animals do today. Think about it—when a lion is about to attack you, it bristles its fur, narrows its eyes, or starts growling. It doesn't need to say a word to tell you what's happening; you still get the message loud and clear that you're about to become lunch.

In my view, humans were gifted with speech specifically so our interactions could become nuanced and layered. Even those little emojis we all use constantly are just modern attempts to supplement our written words, trying to mimic the depth of face-to-face communication. You know what I mean?

Hey everyone!
I’ve been scrolling through the recent posts, but I haven't quite managed to track down a link to what I’m actually most interested in: nonverbal communication 🙂
I'm not entirely sure if that falls strictly under the umbrella of psychology or psychoanalysis—and by the way, could someone actually clarify the distinction between those two for me?—but I have a feeling it’s a topic that would catch anyone's eye on this forum.
So, if you happen to have any insightful takes on how nonverbal cues play out in our day-to-day lives, please, do share them.
I also wanted to ask:
Does anyone know what it actually means when someone spends about 90% of a conversation staring at the floor instead of making eye contact? Is that just a general sign of discomfort, or am I overthinking it?

It could mean pretty much anything, ranging from deep depression to autism. Tell me more about this person.
Nonverbal communication is basically any kind of interaction that doesn't rely on actual speech, like gestures, body language, facial expressions, and all that stuff.

[I’ve started a separate thread just for you 😉]

Nonverbal communication technically falls under communications, though you could argue it belongs in psychology too (though at what point does one end and the other begin? 😬). In short, psychology is the broad scientific study of human—and animal—behavior and mental processes, while psychoanalysis is merely one specific school of thought within that field.

If you want something interesting, simple, and heavily illustrated 🙂, check out Allan Pease’s book, Body Language. It’s a solid starting point, and there is plenty of practical wisdom to be gained from it.

Laura Green96, let's not jump straight to diagnosing someone with a clinical disorder [you aren't a psychiatrist, for heaven's sake 😬]. Most likely, the person is just being simple—maybe they're shy, or perhaps they're lying and feeling awkward about it. 😁

Laura Green96 said:It could mean anything, from clinical depression to autism.

😂 I just realized. It’s lovely that in your version of reality, autistic children are generally capable of speech. There’s hope for you yet.

Looking down during a conversation? Yeah, it signals discomfort. But why...?

It means someone’s feeling uneasy and trying to mask it. It’s about hiding, shutting down... or even lying, if that’s their thing. Pro liars actually look you straight in the eye because they know it makes them more convincing.

And then there’s the avoidance side of things—insecurity, retreating, just giving in.
In a conflict, the first one to break eye contact loses. Think about animals in the wild... shifting your gaze is basically a signal that you're backing down from the fight.

Nonverbal communication goes way deeper than just obvious gestures... It’s the direction of your gaze, how it ties into specific words (you can't really separate eye contact from what's being said; it's all one big loop), the tone, and how you automatically react to the other person's vibe. All of this creates a subconscious impression. That's where the real process happens—through these unconscious projections bouncing back and forth between two people.