Talk:Body language: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:24, 27 February 2011

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Psychology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Languages Start‑class

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive1

"Article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject"

I added the "globalize" tag: "The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Body language varies a lot from one culture to another. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article specifically to find out if common body language in western cultures is interpreted the same way in the middle and far eastern cultures, only to find that there is no information whatsoever relating to this, so I second that. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This sounds like someone's made-up theories"

This article is less-than-useless, perhaps problem-causing in its current state. "Unfocused eyes can mean either boredom or ocular problems"!? Someone just wrote this stuff off the top of their head. Nothing should be in this article unless there are references to research. 165.123.227.183 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, and one of the sources is a *blog*!!!84.202.26.143 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's little evidence/sources to use, but if there were ZERO sources in the world, would you say it's wrong to write "a smile typically indicates a positive feeling"? This whole page is butchered, I wish I could fix it but can't, and the FACS folk ("facial action coding system", which iirc was NOT very objective) will just re-write it this way until there's *real* stuff to cite, so I think cleanup is all that can really be done. Don't think it should be deleted though.

For example, I just 'cut' the following out of this trainwreck because it's completely inaccurate/unsourced: "There is no foolproof way to "read" someone. For instance, given how many non-verbal cues we give while speaking vs. how many our brain can actually interpret while listening, humans can only hope to catch lies by "reading" body language with 50% accuracy^{[citation needed]}." It reads like they're saying humans can "hope" to catch cues 50% of the time, but I'm pretty sure they meant to say (from what I've read - I imagine they read the same thing as well) people generally either can, or cannot, "read" someone. It's not really a "learnable" skillset, not on the "human lie detector" level. I'm not sure where to begin finding it, but there IS some study/review/experiment in which, iirc, they had a setup with a video of people saying a statement, it was the test subject deciding if it was true/false. The finding was that a very small subset of humans has an ability to do better than 50/50, however most people got 50%, and those who couldn't really beat 50% aren't going to, it's not really "learnable" I guess (and can kind of understand why it's more akin to "charisma" than "knowledge", in terms of 'type' of capability/etc). I wish I recall what the people who could 'read cues' got, because -iirc again- the people who could all hit about the same % of "positives" when guessing. SangerRainsford (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found plenty of independent research papers that confirm many of the statements made in this article. There are also a lot of interesting findings by Hess & Polt, 1960, 1964; Hess, Seltzer, & Shlien, 1965 that i found about pupil dilation and interest level. These findings specifically relate to this body language article and women. On a side note, there are also many Evolutionary Psychology papers that evaluate Hess' findings from a different angle while exploring body language from an evolutionary perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.65.132.194 (talk) 09:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"File:Body Language.svg is incomplete - full image does not show"

The image "File:Body Language.svg" has missing words as if there is a white box in the top right corner covering text. I added rthe "cleanup" tag to the article. Maybe someone can find the whole image to post here instead. Jlitz77 (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward T. Hall

Reference to Mr. Hall's book, _The Silent Language_, might help make this entry more precise. 128.147.28.1 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominance

I have a serious problem with the following section ... I believe that it is basing the term Power touch on a WP:Neologism made up by Peter Collett, the Guardian Reporter.

“

Powerful people may express their dominance by means of a power touch. For example, at the G20 summit in London, Barack Obama touched other world leaders in a way that displayed his confidence and strength, without them engaging in reciprocal touching.^[1]

”

The best real reference I can find doing a Gsearch for a Power touch is this one. Is anyone able to find a Citation that matches the one used by the Reporter? ---

^ Peter Collett (3 April 2009), The 'power touch' of Barack Obama at the G20 summit, The Guardian

Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Body language of narcissists

I think that would be worth a section. --Penbat (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Peter Collett (3 April 2009), The 'power touch' of Barack Obama at the G20 summit, The Guardian

[1]

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 For example, I just 'cut' the following out of this trainwreck because it's completely inaccurate/unsourced:
 '''"There is no foolproof way to "read" someone.  For instance, given how many non-verbal cues we give while speaking vs. how many our brain can actually interpret while listening, humans can only hope to catch lies by "reading" body language with 50% accuracy{{citation needed|date=February 2011}}."'''
-It reads like they're saying some specific number that humans can "hope" to catch, but I'm pretty sure they mean that people (from what I've read - I imagine they read this as well) people generally either can, or cannot, "read" someone.  It's not really a "learnable" skillset, not on the "human lie detector" level.  I'm not sure where to begin/going to find it, but there IS some study/review/experiment where they compared people who could tell if someone was lying or not, and the finding was that there's a small percentage of the population who can predict with greater than 50% certainty that someone's lying, whereas everyone else it may as well be 50/50, and there's no real "learning" you can do to fix that. If anyone wanted to find that study/link/whatever, I believe it was a video with a person making a statement as an example, and there were 10 examples iirc, and some people would (do well, can't recall if it was 55% or 90%), others were just guessing - and there was some elaboration that it's not really "learnable", you either have it or you don't.)  [[User:SangerRainsford|SangerRainsford]] ([[User talk:SangerRainsford|talk]]) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
+It reads like they're saying humans can "hope" to catch cues 50% of the time, but I'm pretty sure they meant to say (from what I've read - I imagine they read the same thing as well) people generally either can, or cannot, "read" someone.  It's not really a "learnable" skillset, not on the "human lie detector" level.  I'm not sure where to begin finding it, but there IS some study/review/experiment in which, iirc, they had a setup with a video of people saying a statement, it was the test subject deciding if it was true/false.  The finding was that a very small subset of humans has an ability to do better than 50/50, however most people got 50%, and those who couldn't really beat 50% aren't going to, it's not really "learnable" I guess (and can kind of understand why it's more akin to "charisma" than "knowledge", in terms of 'type' of capability/etc).  I wish I recall what the people who could 'read cues' got, because -iirc again- the people who could all hit about the same % of "positives" when guessing. [[User:SangerRainsford|SangerRainsford]] ([[User talk:SangerRainsford|talk]]) 00:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 I found plenty of independent research papers that confirm many of the statements made in this article. There are also a lot of interesting findings by Hess & Polt, 1960, 1964; Hess, Seltzer, & Shlien, 1965 that i found about pupil dilation and interest level. These findings specifically relate to this body language article and women. On a side note, there are also many Evolutionary Psychology papers that evaluate Hess' findings from a different angle while exploring body language from an evolutionary perspective.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.65.132.194|24.65.132.194]] ([[User talk:24.65.132.194|talk]]) 09:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->