Poker players are masters at picking up on wordless cues. A slight nod of the head. A barely noticeable change in facial expression. A subtle, nervous tap of the finger on the poker table.
Every day, we communicate more with what we do not say or write than what we do say or write. How many times has a roll of the eyes by a co-worker, partner or child spoken volumes about what that person is thinking or feeling?
This week, judge Simon Cowell of "American Idol" learned the hard way about how a simple eye roll can send the wrong message. While a contestant on stage was paying his respects to the Virginia Tech victims, Cowell was conversing quietly with judge Paul Abdul and rolled his eyes. Many viewers thought Cowell was being disrespectful to the victims. But as Cowell explained on camera the next night, he wasn't rolling his eyes about the contestant's short speech on Virginia Tech. Cowell says he didn't even hear the contestant's words. Rather, Cowell says he was rolling his eyes about the contestant's performance.
Researcher Albert Mahrabian explains that words account for just 7 percent of a message, while tone of voice accounts for 38 percent and body language accounts for 55 percent, according to Wikipedia. As Wikipedia defines it, nonverbal communication can be conveyed through gestures; posture; facial expressions; eye contact; symbols; speech patterns such as voice quality; and even through "object" communication such as clothing, hairstyles and architecture.
Today, heading south on MoPac here in Austin, I used a little nonverbal communication of my own. Yes, right there on the highway. A motorist in a big pickup truck was tailing me a little too closely, so I peered over my sunglasses and gave him a brief "look." Within seconds, he backed off my bumper. Sometimes, it's tempting to use a finger-based form of nonverbal communication. But I figured that gesture wouldn't serve me well, especially since his truck was much larger than my relatively tiny Toyota.
Now, if we could just get more motorists to practice nonverbal communication, instead of clogging traffic by communicating via voice and text on their cell phones and PDAs. That would produce a great form of nonverbal communication -- a smile.
Showing posts with label Virginia Tech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Virginia Tech. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
A horrible tragedy
It was with horror that I learned of the massacre at Virginia Tech that has claimed more than 30 lives. It's the most unreal, sad tragedy ever at a college or university campus in the United States.
Unlike the University of Texas tragedy in 1966 or the Kent State tragedy in 1970, this one occurred in an age during which news delivery is instantaneous. My first word of the Virginia Tech massacre came this morning when I logged onto my email service. A headline broke the news to me.
Just a little while ago, I switched on the TV to learn more about the Virginia Tech violence. CNN and Fox, among other networks, are feeding us constant coverage of the massacre. Back in the days of the UT and Kent State shootings, news filtered to the masses in a considerably slower manner; we typically had to wait till the evening news or the morning papers to get the full story. Now, on networks such as CNN and Fox, we're seeing multiple images of and hearing multiple reports about the Virginia Tech rampage -- from professional and amateur reporters.
Such rapid distribution of news is double-edged. We certainly receive information with swift speed. But we also receive information that can be incomplete or downright inaccurate. This afternoon, for instance, it was unclear who the shooter was, how many people had been killed and how many people had been injured.
To be sure, we can't expect all the concrete details to spill forth right away. Nonetheless, we also need to read, watch and listen to news about the Virginia Tech massacre and other such incidents with skeptical eyes and ears.
Unlike the University of Texas tragedy in 1966 or the Kent State tragedy in 1970, this one occurred in an age during which news delivery is instantaneous. My first word of the Virginia Tech massacre came this morning when I logged onto my email service. A headline broke the news to me.
Just a little while ago, I switched on the TV to learn more about the Virginia Tech violence. CNN and Fox, among other networks, are feeding us constant coverage of the massacre. Back in the days of the UT and Kent State shootings, news filtered to the masses in a considerably slower manner; we typically had to wait till the evening news or the morning papers to get the full story. Now, on networks such as CNN and Fox, we're seeing multiple images of and hearing multiple reports about the Virginia Tech rampage -- from professional and amateur reporters.
Such rapid distribution of news is double-edged. We certainly receive information with swift speed. But we also receive information that can be incomplete or downright inaccurate. This afternoon, for instance, it was unclear who the shooter was, how many people had been killed and how many people had been injured.
To be sure, we can't expect all the concrete details to spill forth right away. Nonetheless, we also need to read, watch and listen to news about the Virginia Tech massacre and other such incidents with skeptical eyes and ears.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)