Check
out the link below:
By Kevin Uhrmacher and Lazaheir lecterns, Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump were able to roam the stage at Sunday night’s presidential debate.
And while the spoken insults and accusations will provide much fodder for
political analysts in the days ahead, we invited two body language experts to
dissect the candidates’ nonverbal cues.Here’s a bit about the experts, whose
lightly edited thoughts about the debate are below:David Givens, who is the director of the Center for
Nonverbal Studies, a nonprofit research center in Spokane, Wash. Givens
also contributed to this helpful dissection of Clinton and Trump’s body language
before the debate.
Patti
Wood, author of the book “SNAP: Making the Most of First Impressions,
Body Language, and Charisma.” Wood has experience analyzing body language as it
relates to anger, gender roles and apologies, which all proved helpful during
the 90-minute spectacle.
The
candidates walked out and, in a break with tradition, did not shake hands. Wood offered a thought about why
it is so important. “A handshake … signals we are equals. Now we can come out
fighting,” she wrote in an email Sunday night. The candidates did eventually
shake hands, but not until the close of the debate.
‘He circles like a lion’: Trump
declares his dominance
Looking to reverse his fortunes
after a week on the defensive, Trump demanded attention with a display of
aggressive sniffing, interruptions and emphatic pointing. But, compared with
the last debate, “Donald was quite relaxed and calm,” Givens said.
“Trump came forth in full
alpha-male mode,” The Post’s Karen
Tumulty wrote after the debate. The experts agreed. Trump repeatedly
pointed at Clinton as he lobbed accusations at her, a gesture Givens called
“aggressive in all cultures.” He also compared Trump’s snorts with “a bull in
attack mode.”
“I think the anger actually worked for
him,” Wood suggested after the debate. “That’s his superpower.” For Trump,
anger helps establish dominance and has a strong appeal, especially for
disaffected voters, she said, adding that Americans are often drawn to the
candidate who appears stronger.
Givens: “Trump’s constant pacing and restless movements around the
stage attracted attention from Hillary's words, and visually disrespected her
physical presence on the stage, as in ‘I am big, you are small.’ ” Wood: “He circles her
during her turn. He is like a lion: going in with a biting attack, then keeping
his attack energy going by continuing to move and circle.”
Givens: “Sitting is submissive; standing up is
assertive. He paces [during her turn] to stay in motion, taking visual
attention away from Clinton and her words. … His main message is ‘I am here,
see me.’ “
Givens: “His manner of leaning hands and arms on the
back of his chair as Hillary spoke was aggressive, too, as in a ‘broadside
display’ of power. [It’s] common in the vertebrate world of males showing the
biggest, widest parts of their bodies to intimidate rivals.”
Wood: “Trump attacked Bill Clinton when he had a chance to apologize. A
true apology does not include an attack.”Wood: “Clinton smiled as she began to respond to the Bill attack.
[That] signals she was ready and confident. Her voice as she delivered was the
strongest and angriest I have heard.”
Clinton stumbles on the smile
While Wood approved of Clinton’s performance overall, she said
Clinton’s smile looked inappropriate. Both experts also thought Clinton looked
comparatively weak when she sat as Trump spoke. Wood: “She stayed calm and even through most of the debates. His
circling and staying close to her did not affect her, as scary as it looked to
us.”
Givens: “Hillary addressed listeners sympathetically,
with positive feelings and positive regard.”
Clinton reacts to Trump’s statement
about using a special prosecutor to look into her “situation.” Reacting to
Trump’s statements about her email scandal Trump criticizes Clinton saying she
is “all talk” Both candidates react to a question asking for “one positive
thing you respect in one another.”
Wood: “Because I've been analyzing her body language for a long time, I
know her baseline … I think [the smile] was okay in the first debate [since]
Trump rambled and had run-on sentences. [He] often did not make sense, so
smiling seemed appropriate to communicate that she felt it was funny.”
The second debate was different, Wood said, because Trump spoke in more
complete sentences and lobbed more serious accusations her way. This made it
feel less natural for Clinton to crack a big smile.
Advice for the next debate
Trump should hew closer to his second debate performance, where he was
more consistent across the entire 90 minutes, Wood said.
For Clinton, she offered some counterintuitive advice: Continue to
break the rules. This may sound familiar to people who have worked in a
corporate setting, Wood said. “A powerful person often breaks the rules.”
(Think of the boss who shows up late to meetings.)
If Trump continues to flout the debate guidelines in the Oct. 19 debate, but Clinton sticks to her
allotted time, she could look weak by comparison. Wood said she should monitor
Trump and continue to establish power by going over her time limits if
necessary.
