Showing posts with label body language expert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label body language expert. Show all posts
Media Frenzy....
In the last month I have done a weekly “Will they last?” piece for OK! Magazine, Three Cosomo interviews, As well as interviews for Men’s Health, Esquire, Glamour, AOL, Fox News, ABC news, Womens world, Sugur (UK publication), Life and Style weekly, The Sun (Canadian publication), America’s Best, and many more TV, print and online publications and radio interviews. Do to my busy speaking schedule I have also had to turn down requests for Larry King Live, The Big Idea, Fox News, and Access Hollywood. I look forward to reading the candidates more as the election draws closer.
Times Union Blog...
Take a look at my comments in this article by a fellow blogger:
http://blogs.timesunion.com/kristi/?p=143
http://blogs.timesunion.com/kristi/?p=143
Body Language Notes to be Featured in Cosmo...
Here are some notes from this months Cosmo interview:
Hed
What His Touches Can Tell You
Dek
It’s no secret that guys aren’t big on talking. Luckily, their bodies communicate for them—if you know how to read the signs.
The lean-in from the side
You may notice this gesture when you’re sitting next to each other at the dinner table or at a bar. It’s subtle and may seem like an accident (for example, you brush shoulders sharing a menu or your knees bump), but may actually calculated contact to gauge your interest. If a guy is on the shy side, this approach seems like a “safe” way to see how you react–if you’re not into it, he won’t lose face if you recoil.
The playful punch.
This grade school move is what guys revert to when they like you but have no clue how to verbalize it (or they’re too nervous to). Men also relate to one another by rough housing, so your date may be trying to establish a bond. A punch between guys in a nonsexual way to say, “We are buddies” so for men it seems a sage way to say they like you.
The forearm graze.
If a man briefly places his touches you on your forearm as he is talking he may be reaching out to make sure he has your attention. He may be worried you’re losing interest and he’s trying to bring you back into the moment. If he touches you on the forearm while your talking it is more likely a sign of interest in you and what you have to say.
The hand on the back.
A guy who gently places his palm on your lower back (to guide you through a crowd, for example) is on his best behavior. He’s trying to make a good impression and let you know that he’s a gentleman. [Patti – this is from another expert, whom we cite below]
Notice how and where he places his hand. Is he gentle rather than possessivlivly gripping your back ? Where does he place his hand, in the sweet spot in the center of the back or lower. If his hand creeps lower, he may be testing the waters to see how far physically you’ll let him go.
Sources: Patti Wood, body language expert and author of Success Signals; Jan Hargrave, body language consultant and author of Let Me See Your Body Talk
Hed
What His Touches Can Tell You
Dek
It’s no secret that guys aren’t big on talking. Luckily, their bodies communicate for them—if you know how to read the signs.
The lean-in from the side
You may notice this gesture when you’re sitting next to each other at the dinner table or at a bar. It’s subtle and may seem like an accident (for example, you brush shoulders sharing a menu or your knees bump), but may actually calculated contact to gauge your interest. If a guy is on the shy side, this approach seems like a “safe” way to see how you react–if you’re not into it, he won’t lose face if you recoil.
The playful punch.
This grade school move is what guys revert to when they like you but have no clue how to verbalize it (or they’re too nervous to). Men also relate to one another by rough housing, so your date may be trying to establish a bond. A punch between guys in a nonsexual way to say, “We are buddies” so for men it seems a sage way to say they like you.
The forearm graze.
If a man briefly places his touches you on your forearm as he is talking he may be reaching out to make sure he has your attention. He may be worried you’re losing interest and he’s trying to bring you back into the moment. If he touches you on the forearm while your talking it is more likely a sign of interest in you and what you have to say.
The hand on the back.
A guy who gently places his palm on your lower back (to guide you through a crowd, for example) is on his best behavior. He’s trying to make a good impression and let you know that he’s a gentleman. [Patti – this is from another expert, whom we cite below]
Notice how and where he places his hand. Is he gentle rather than possessivlivly gripping your back ? Where does he place his hand, in the sweet spot in the center of the back or lower. If his hand creeps lower, he may be testing the waters to see how far physically you’ll let him go.
Sources: Patti Wood, body language expert and author of Success Signals; Jan Hargrave, body language consultant and author of Let Me See Your Body Talk
Mens Health - Great Eye Contact Question...
I recently helped to answer a question on Mens Health - Maybe you can benefit from my answer...
Question: I struggle to maintain eye contact. Can you help? Matt, Boston, MA
Answer: First, understand why you're loathe to lock eyes. "When you feel dominated, anxious, or shy, you look away as an attempt to regain control, disengage, and limit how much information you take in," says John Dovidio, Ph.D., a psychology professor at Yale University. So before any important conversation, make a conscious effort to rein in your addled emotions. If you're still struggling with eye contact, take the advice of body-language expert Patti Wood, M.A., and "split your attention among the person's mouth, eyes, and cheeks." This makes wandering eyes less obvious. And don't stop trying: University of Colorado researchers found that meeting a person's gaze makes you seem powerful and credible.
Question: I struggle to maintain eye contact. Can you help? Matt, Boston, MA
Answer: First, understand why you're loathe to lock eyes. "When you feel dominated, anxious, or shy, you look away as an attempt to regain control, disengage, and limit how much information you take in," says John Dovidio, Ph.D., a psychology professor at Yale University. So before any important conversation, make a conscious effort to rein in your addled emotions. If you're still struggling with eye contact, take the advice of body-language expert Patti Wood, M.A., and "split your attention among the person's mouth, eyes, and cheeks." This makes wandering eyes less obvious. And don't stop trying: University of Colorado researchers found that meeting a person's gaze makes you seem powerful and credible.
Fox News Network's O'Reilly Factor
Tune in to the Fox News Network's O'Reilly Factor:America's Election IQ @ 9/17/08 @ 5 - 6 PM EST
Body language expert, Patti Wood has been asked to join the set of FNN's O'Reilly Factor at 5:45 PM EST! Be sure to tune in and hear Patti's amazing nonverbal insights on Palin's body language!
Check Patti's Website for more about Patti.
Here is a preview of her commentary on Palin's body language:
She is actively moving and manipulating space makes her looks powerful and action oriented. Gestures automatically act like an orchestra leader’s baton to animate the voice
Emphasizes her points making them more memorable to us.
Tune in tonight for more!
Jessica Simpson Tongue Body Language for Glamour.com...
Playfully showing your tongue is often about seduction. In Jessica’s case her tongue is unusually long and she knows it.
She shows it off as she shows off her other assets with the goal of being noticed. The various ways she shows her tongue full out to the front, to the side or just showing the tip all work to say nonverbally, “I am the sexiest women you have ever seen.”
Mortgage Banker's Association
I recently spoke to the wonderful people of the Mortgage Bankers Association.
Here is a picture from the day...
McCain New York Times Deception
Today I was on CNN Headline news and Fox news talking about Senator McCain’s Body Language as he responded to the New York Times story of his alleged affair with a lobbyist. The big question did him have and affair and did that because him have any improprieties with public policy. Bottom line is this statement did not indicate that he did. Unlike the Roger Clemmons Testimony I analyzed last week were Roger in which Roger was angry and upset and had multiple deception cues like Drawbridge tongue and lip erasures McCain was even and calm in his responses. Not to calm and restrained not angry…extremes on either emotional end would have made me suspicious as when someone is lying their behavior tends to go to the extreme of their normal demeanor.
While McCain did not show clear deception cues he did have a few telling and rather interesting nervousness cues. First in his statement. “At no time have I ever done anything to betray the public trust … or make any decisions ... anything ... public.
He vocally punched up the words ever, anything, public, decisions and the final public.
He also pushed his head forward as he said most of those words. The most punched was the word public on public trust. Politicians and liars choose their words carefully. He didn’t make any DECISIONS... to Betray PUBLIC trust. This still leaves him an opening to have had actions that betrayed a private trust.
Next discussing the New York Times article, McCain said “…I am very disappointed in the New York Times article It’s not true. He used the contraction It’s rather than it is not true. Lies tend to want to emphasize the no or that not in this statement he used that contraction of a truth teller. In the next question did his staff talk to him about appearing to be to close to a lobbyist he said nodded his head no first then said no showing his feelings before saying his feeling an indication of honesty. Asked, “No meeting ( with staffers about it) ever occurred he again shook no then said no and as he did he showed his one small tell of anger shut his mouth tightly to hold in his mad face and then his cheeks puffed up with all the surprised anger.
Did you ever have such a relationship (romantic) he shuts his eyes says no shuts his eyes again them grimaces. Showing his displeasure with being asked the question but no clear indications of deceit. Concerning a relationship. When asked, “Do you feel that in?
Terms of your relationship you were closer with her than others? He responded by shaking his and simultaneously saying not and his voice got softer on the no, showing their may be a question in his mind about what Closer Relationship with other might mean. Think of the significance of Clinton’s word choice I did not have sexual relations with that women. But even these cues did not show clear deceit.
As he talked about the letters he wrote to the FCC his voice and body language were calm, again no restrained or overly tense as he said he explained why he did nothing inappropriate. He certainly was telling the truth about that.
While McCain did not show clear deception cues he did have a few telling and rather interesting nervousness cues. First in his statement. “At no time have I ever done anything to betray the public trust … or make any decisions ... anything ... public.
He vocally punched up the words ever, anything, public, decisions and the final public.
He also pushed his head forward as he said most of those words. The most punched was the word public on public trust. Politicians and liars choose their words carefully. He didn’t make any DECISIONS... to Betray PUBLIC trust. This still leaves him an opening to have had actions that betrayed a private trust.
Next discussing the New York Times article, McCain said “…I am very disappointed in the New York Times article It’s not true. He used the contraction It’s rather than it is not true. Lies tend to want to emphasize the no or that not in this statement he used that contraction of a truth teller. In the next question did his staff talk to him about appearing to be to close to a lobbyist he said nodded his head no first then said no showing his feelings before saying his feeling an indication of honesty. Asked, “No meeting ( with staffers about it) ever occurred he again shook no then said no and as he did he showed his one small tell of anger shut his mouth tightly to hold in his mad face and then his cheeks puffed up with all the surprised anger.
Did you ever have such a relationship (romantic) he shuts his eyes says no shuts his eyes again them grimaces. Showing his displeasure with being asked the question but no clear indications of deceit. Concerning a relationship. When asked, “Do you feel that in?
Terms of your relationship you were closer with her than others? He responded by shaking his and simultaneously saying not and his voice got softer on the no, showing their may be a question in his mind about what Closer Relationship with other might mean. Think of the significance of Clinton’s word choice I did not have sexual relations with that women. But even these cues did not show clear deceit.
As he talked about the letters he wrote to the FCC his voice and body language were calm, again no restrained or overly tense as he said he explained why he did nothing inappropriate. He certainly was telling the truth about that.
John McCain's Body Language
John McCain nonverbals are different from the other candidates in their lack of full body movement, lack of gestures, lack of vocal variation and overall lack of energy. He does of course have health concerns that effect his movement. When speaking in the youtube video the controversial Pig Book his voice has and very little variation in pitch tone or volume, perhaps in an attempt at gravitas.
Of all the videos I watched the only time I noted him speaking emotionally with vocal variation and a with fast and intense pace is when he was defending his statements about the war winding down (not sure of exact words) that the media had called him on. On video John McCain talks about the war.
Off all the candidates McCain blinks the most frequently. Normal blink rate is 20 closures per minute. If someone blinks even slightly more than that, it can be sign he or she is excited or nervous. Watch when he blinks the most to see what he is uncomfortable talking about.
Of all the videos I watched the only time I noted him speaking emotionally with vocal variation and a with fast and intense pace is when he was defending his statements about the war winding down (not sure of exact words) that the media had called him on. On video John McCain talks about the war.
Off all the candidates McCain blinks the most frequently. Normal blink rate is 20 closures per minute. If someone blinks even slightly more than that, it can be sign he or she is excited or nervous. Watch when he blinks the most to see what he is uncomfortable talking about.
I have been analyzing hours of tape for a three-part History Channel special that I am shooting this weekend. Here are my rough notes on Obama's voice as he did his victory speech at the Iowa Caucus back in January. Barack's voice is naturally a deep, full, low baritone. According to research, deep low voices are perceived as more authoritative, believable, and trustworthy. Combine that with the ease with which he can speak loudly without any vocal strain, and you can hear his voice coming from the TV in another room and feel its authority and power. As much as she tries to control it and make it sound lower, Hillary's voice is not naturally low. When she attempts to lower it, she strains it and sounds screechy and angry.
Obama's paralanguage is chameleon-like. He changes his voice so dramatically to suit his location, his audience, and his topic, that it is difficult to know just what his real voice is or who he truly is. Listen to how Obama's cadence has that certain rhythm like a Baptist preacher. Listen to how he speaks on beat and extends certain words. For example, "They saaaaaaaid this day would never come." Preachers have a special rhythmic pattern where their voices fluctuate up and down like a song and pause on a beat rhythmically like a paradiddle on a drum. His speaking is so musical and pleasing to the ear, that we can be moved by the rhythm and not even hear the words. In fact the words may actually lack substance and he can get by without really saying anything new in the speech.
Obama’s vocal style is hypnotic, such that when his voice goes up and then he pauses, you almost want to cheer and say amen. You can’t help yourself. He actually copies the feel and the cadence of Martin Luther King’s “I had a dream” speech. Listen to how to his volume goes up and up and up…stirring the crowd, and then he pauses for effect. He waits until the audience cheers before he moves on to the next sentence. Pausing makes the word before the pause, and sometimes the entire sentence before the pause, sound more powerful and important.
And notice how he says particular words, like “you small towns and churches, Ameeerica, and affooordableeeee. As he draws these words out, he puts on a slightly more southern accent or he casually slurs the word. That makes him sound like one of the common folk. So even when we know that he came from an upper class family, when he says, “calloused hand by calloused hand,” he sounds like he was there with us working on the farm and plowing the field.
Check out the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZaq-YKCnE
Obama's paralanguage is chameleon-like. He changes his voice so dramatically to suit his location, his audience, and his topic, that it is difficult to know just what his real voice is or who he truly is. Listen to how Obama's cadence has that certain rhythm like a Baptist preacher. Listen to how he speaks on beat and extends certain words. For example, "They saaaaaaaid this day would never come." Preachers have a special rhythmic pattern where their voices fluctuate up and down like a song and pause on a beat rhythmically like a paradiddle on a drum. His speaking is so musical and pleasing to the ear, that we can be moved by the rhythm and not even hear the words. In fact the words may actually lack substance and he can get by without really saying anything new in the speech.
Obama’s vocal style is hypnotic, such that when his voice goes up and then he pauses, you almost want to cheer and say amen. You can’t help yourself. He actually copies the feel and the cadence of Martin Luther King’s “I had a dream” speech. Listen to how to his volume goes up and up and up…stirring the crowd, and then he pauses for effect. He waits until the audience cheers before he moves on to the next sentence. Pausing makes the word before the pause, and sometimes the entire sentence before the pause, sound more powerful and important.
And notice how he says particular words, like “you small towns and churches, Ameeerica, and affooordableeeee. As he draws these words out, he puts on a slightly more southern accent or he casually slurs the word. That makes him sound like one of the common folk. So even when we know that he came from an upper class family, when he says, “calloused hand by calloused hand,” he sounds like he was there with us working on the farm and plowing the field.
Check out the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZaq-YKCnE
Body language analysis of Presidential candidate Obama
One of the most interesting and dramatic aspects of Obama’s body and para language is that it changes so much from speech to speech and location to location. While many candidates slow down their speech slightly to charm their southern audiences and increase their rate for New York news shows, Obama transforms. For example, if you had never heard him speak before and watched him give his Selma Alabama speech you would note his voice is extremely slow and takes on the relaxed consonants and cadence of Alabama. When he is interviewed on1/10/2007 concerning his response to the Bush Speech his voice pace is face, his speech is clipped, and his consonants are crisp.
When he is out in crowds he stops to talk to someone he laser focuses on them. He gives them significant extended eye contact, leans forward and stays in their intimate zone of space. These behaviors we observed in the “charismatic Clinton.
Remember what makes a candidate look honest and powerful to us when we view him or her on the small screen, may be counter to what may look appropriate to the audience he or she is speaking to when they are taped in front of a live audience. When speaking, behind a podium or on a stage without he does something rather unusual he turns his face and body to sides or moves his entire body towards the audience to shows his desire to empathize and connect with them. However, when we view that on video we may read it differently subconsciously. For example, In the Selma speech he turns his face and body to his right side then left again and again, rather than focus to the front and center. Front and center speaking is read as more honest, more forthright and powerful. On the tapes speech 2 of 5 on you/tube he actually leans his body from the waist up out towards the audience of students as he makes each point. Typically candidates stay straight up and down to show they are “Straight” and strong on issues.
Obama’s body language cues are different in debates and interviews than in speeches. In Third televised debate Keys Obama becomes visibly angry he jabs out his finger at the interviewer in a symbolic weapon even a one time at the end of the interview. At one point he even puts up both hands with the forefingers out symbolically firing as if there were guns in each hand pushes his hand out toward, not just in a symbolic stop sign, but a more aggressive pushing away motion. Nonverbally when can see he is an emotional man. Look for interviews like his response to Bush speech. Watch his mouth goes up more on his left side. Our emotional right hemisphere controls the left side of he face when there is a split face and one side shows more than the other note which side. The mouth twisting up to his left says he was feeling very emotional and though he wished to control it he couldn’t.
When he is out in crowds he stops to talk to someone he laser focuses on them. He gives them significant extended eye contact, leans forward and stays in their intimate zone of space. These behaviors we observed in the “charismatic Clinton.
Remember what makes a candidate look honest and powerful to us when we view him or her on the small screen, may be counter to what may look appropriate to the audience he or she is speaking to when they are taped in front of a live audience. When speaking, behind a podium or on a stage without he does something rather unusual he turns his face and body to sides or moves his entire body towards the audience to shows his desire to empathize and connect with them. However, when we view that on video we may read it differently subconsciously. For example, In the Selma speech he turns his face and body to his right side then left again and again, rather than focus to the front and center. Front and center speaking is read as more honest, more forthright and powerful. On the tapes speech 2 of 5 on you/tube he actually leans his body from the waist up out towards the audience of students as he makes each point. Typically candidates stay straight up and down to show they are “Straight” and strong on issues.
Obama’s body language cues are different in debates and interviews than in speeches. In Third televised debate Keys Obama becomes visibly angry he jabs out his finger at the interviewer in a symbolic weapon even a one time at the end of the interview. At one point he even puts up both hands with the forefingers out symbolically firing as if there were guns in each hand pushes his hand out toward, not just in a symbolic stop sign, but a more aggressive pushing away motion. Nonverbally when can see he is an emotional man. Look for interviews like his response to Bush speech. Watch his mouth goes up more on his left side. Our emotional right hemisphere controls the left side of he face when there is a split face and one side shows more than the other note which side. The mouth twisting up to his left says he was feeling very emotional and though he wished to control it he couldn’t.
Body Language Influences on the Presidential Vote
As an expert in body language I am often asked to do reads of political leaders. (Yes, I know your thinking, “How do you become an expert on such a weird thing.) I have communication degrees with a specialization in body language, taught the topic at the university level, and have researched, written and spoken on it for over 25 years)
Last week I was asked by Psychology today to study tapes of the speeches and interviews of the top presidential candidates over the next few weeks I will be posting to my blog the detailed notes I took as I read over 12 hours of tapes on the candidates. I wanted to start my discussion with a research study on the influence of body language on political choice - body language influence on Presidential voting.
Body language influences us in so many ways, but did you know it profoundly effects who is chosen as president of the United States. Researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research studied the effects of charisma on politics The study involved a group of Harvard undergraduates who were shown 10-second silent video clips of candidates in 58 gubernatorial elections between 1988 and 2000--candidates unfamiliar to the study participants. When asked who they thought had won the election the students were still able to choose the candidate who won 60% of the time. They didn’t know anything about the background of and more importantly never heard a word they said. Their choices where made purely on the basis of body language!
What explained this? "Shapiro was reluctant to call it charisma, although his colleague Danial J. Benjamin, a fellow at the University of Michigan...had no such qualms. He noted 'We found that snap decisions based on charisma are good predictors of election outcomes'."
How did they define Charisma? They used a definition from German sociologist Max Weber, who studied charisma, described it as a gift of power, leadership. They were looking at the body language seeing those strong power characteristics and saying that is the body language of a leader. In fact, According to US psychologist, Alex Todorov, people respond intuitively to faces so rapidly, that their reasoning minds may not have time to influence the reaction. The results of the newest research say that when we see a new face, our brains decide whether that person is attractive and trustworthy within one-tenth of a second.
Last week I was asked by Psychology today to study tapes of the speeches and interviews of the top presidential candidates over the next few weeks I will be posting to my blog the detailed notes I took as I read over 12 hours of tapes on the candidates. I wanted to start my discussion with a research study on the influence of body language on political choice - body language influence on Presidential voting.
Body language influences us in so many ways, but did you know it profoundly effects who is chosen as president of the United States. Researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research studied the effects of charisma on politics The study involved a group of Harvard undergraduates who were shown 10-second silent video clips of candidates in 58 gubernatorial elections between 1988 and 2000--candidates unfamiliar to the study participants. When asked who they thought had won the election the students were still able to choose the candidate who won 60% of the time. They didn’t know anything about the background of and more importantly never heard a word they said. Their choices where made purely on the basis of body language!
What explained this? "Shapiro was reluctant to call it charisma, although his colleague Danial J. Benjamin, a fellow at the University of Michigan...had no such qualms. He noted 'We found that snap decisions based on charisma are good predictors of election outcomes'."
How did they define Charisma? They used a definition from German sociologist Max Weber, who studied charisma, described it as a gift of power, leadership. They were looking at the body language seeing those strong power characteristics and saying that is the body language of a leader. In fact, According to US psychologist, Alex Todorov, people respond intuitively to faces so rapidly, that their reasoning minds may not have time to influence the reaction. The results of the newest research say that when we see a new face, our brains decide whether that person is attractive and trustworthy within one-tenth of a second.
Hilary Clinton Body Language
Representivtive Hilary Clinton steeples when she talks. This gesture is unusual for women to do. She takes her hands and clasps the fingers together so they are more open on the bottom and create a point or steeple on the top. Specifically she does what is called a low steeple or cannon, where she holds this point at her waist level or slightly above her waist level with the point out toward the audience. In everyday interaction a person using the low steeple has a strong differing opinion and wants to shoot “cannon” at you. For Hilary I believe she is taking the offensive when making controversial points.
She is showing signs of voice strain. If you know it is not from mike problems or for speaking too much, voice strain occurs when someone speaks to long or two loads in a low register to show authority in their voice and also when someone is aggressive pushing their points at their audience.
There were little personal ticks in the video I watched of her on you/tube were Hilary Clinton announces run for President. Particularly interesting was something she did in what you would assume was a well planned, and you would assume well rehearsed and coached speech. As she says makes the statement, “...and let’s definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care. “ The statement is an affirmative positive statement,”American can have, but her head shakes back and forth in a no as she says “… every American can have..” rather than up and down. This is a subconscious "leakage" cue that signals she doesn’t believe that statement is true. In this same video she also presses her lips together to suppress or pull back from an angry grimace after she says, “George Bush.” This seemed like a planned little act rather than a natural catching of an inappropriately negative reference to the president. Her paralanguage and facial expressions shift from forced and false warmth to what seems more natural derision and sarcasm as she talks about Bush or the current administration.
One of the things that Hilary battles against as a female candidate is that men are uncomfortable around unsmiling women. Which explains why women typically smile more than men – Women maintain community by smiling and men maintain dominance when not smiling and when Hilary does not smile she is showing what many might read as inappropriate dominance.
Hilary Clinton Body Language
Representivtive Hilary Clinton steeples when she talks. This gesture is unusual for women to do. She takes her hands and clasps the fingers together so they are more open on the bottom and create a point or steeple on the top. Specifically she does what is called a low steeple or cannon, where she holds this point at her waist level or slightly above her waist level with the point out toward the audience. In everyday interaction a person using the low steeple has a strong differing opinion and wants to shoot “cannon” at you. For Hilary I believe she is taking the offensive when making controversial points.
She is showing signs of voice strain. If you know it is not from mike problems or for speaking too much, voice strain occurs when someone speaks to long or two loads in a low register to show authority in their voice and also when someone is aggressive pushing their points at their audience.
There were little personal ticks in the video I watched of her on you/tube were Hilary Clinton announces run for President. Particularly interesting was something she did in what you would assume was a well planned, and you would assume well rehearsed and coached speech. As she says makes the statement, “...and let’s definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care. “ The statement is an affirmative positive statement,”American can have, but her head shakes back and forth in a no as she says “… every American can have..” rather than up and down. This is a subconscious "leakage" cue that signals she doesn’t believe that statement is true. In this same video she also presses her lips together to suppress or pull back from an angry grimace after she says, “George Bush.” This seemed like a planned little act rather than a natural catching of an inappropriately negative reference to the president. Her paralanguage and facial expressions shift from forced and false warmth to what seems more natural derision and sarcasm as she talks about Bush or the current administration.
One of the things that Hilary battles against as a female candidate is that men are uncomfortable around unsmiling women. Which explains why women typically smile more than men – Women maintain community by smiling and men maintain dominance when not smiling and when Hilary does not smile she is showing what many might read as inappropriate dominance.
She is showing signs of voice strain. If you know it is not from mike problems or for speaking too much, voice strain occurs when someone speaks to long or two loads in a low register to show authority in their voice and also when someone is aggressive pushing their points at their audience.
There were little personal ticks in the video I watched of her on you/tube were Hilary Clinton announces run for President. Particularly interesting was something she did in what you would assume was a well planned, and you would assume well rehearsed and coached speech. As she says makes the statement, “...and let’s definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care. “ The statement is an affirmative positive statement,”American can have, but her head shakes back and forth in a no as she says “… every American can have..” rather than up and down. This is a subconscious "leakage" cue that signals she doesn’t believe that statement is true. In this same video she also presses her lips together to suppress or pull back from an angry grimace after she says, “George Bush.” This seemed like a planned little act rather than a natural catching of an inappropriately negative reference to the president. Her paralanguage and facial expressions shift from forced and false warmth to what seems more natural derision and sarcasm as she talks about Bush or the current administration.
One of the things that Hilary battles against as a female candidate is that men are uncomfortable around unsmiling women. Which explains why women typically smile more than men – Women maintain community by smiling and men maintain dominance when not smiling and when Hilary does not smile she is showing what many might read as inappropriate dominance.
Presidential Candidates...
While Hillary Clinton shook her head side to side no while making a positive statement once in speech, Mitt Romney does it often in interviews. He does it repeatedly in an interview with Hannity on Fox news. For example when saying, “ I don’t think people care a lot about which church you belong to he shook his head side to side indicating a no as he said, “I don’t think people care a lot…” When someone makes a positive definitive statement and shakes their head no it appears that they are lying. (This head shaking cue is one I taught in my interviews and interrogation techniques courses to law enforcement) So it looks like he actually believes they DO care a lot! He even does it on a video on his own website as he discusses what he believes. Like a twisted mouth shows your talking out of the side of your mouth this may be a habitual cue showing he is not sure what he believes.
He also like McCain in several of his interviews uses a “masking”, a tense fake smile to cover his displeasure at how the interview is going.
While many candidates, Giuliani, Clinton and Edwards use aggressive and powerful chopping motions as they speak Romney’s hands more often stay cupped and sweep out which makes him appear less definitive and aggressive and on the issues. He even does this in a video of his speech on topic he feels strongly about the Islamic Jihad.
He also like McCain in several of his interviews uses a “masking”, a tense fake smile to cover his displeasure at how the interview is going.
While many candidates, Giuliani, Clinton and Edwards use aggressive and powerful chopping motions as they speak Romney’s hands more often stay cupped and sweep out which makes him appear less definitive and aggressive and on the issues. He even does this in a video of his speech on topic he feels strongly about the Islamic Jihad.
Body Langauge - Obama and other interesting tidbits...
Here are some interesting body language comments from others:
Body language reveals the naked truth
By Allan Markin - Penticton Western News - February 28, 2008
We communicate with each other in many ways. I find our body language the most interesting, perhaps because our physical messages often occur without our realizing it.
Body language can tell us what a person is really like. I’ve been watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign for the Democratic nomination to become the next U.S. president, sure to happen unless the Democrats foul things up as they have done in the past. Remember the fiasco a few years ago when their super delegates chose Walter Mondale?
Now that Obama has taken the lead and is enjoying a surging campaign, Hillary’s body language has been showing signs of desperation. She still smiles sweetly, like somebody’s mom. Then, eyes aglow with disdain and fury, she launches into vituperative attacks on Obama, looking and sounding like a stern mother scolding a son who stayed out past curfew time and came home drunk.
Indeed, where once she looked directly at Obama when he was speaking, suggesting that she had real interest in what he was saying, now she turns away, as if to convey the message that he’s not worth listening to. This body language indicates arrogance, disrespect and feigned self-confidence — messages that will not bolster a faltering campaign.
Someone should tell her that such behaviour is not presidential. True leadership means being magnanimous and rising above small-minded petulance. Obama, to his credit, has been measured and calm in his responses. His body language continues to convey quiet confidence and poise. He looks presidential, even now when the heat on him has been turned up and the scandal-mongering that plagues American politics has emerged from the political slime.
Sometimes body language makes me angry. Recently I watched Elmer Mckay, former MP and cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney’s government, testifying before the Commons Ethics Committee regarding the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Mr. Mackay should be ashamed of his juvenile behaviour.
He slouched arrogantly in his chair like an unrepentant high school student in the principal’s office. He smirked. He played with his glasses. He shrugged. He smiled sweetly. His nonchalant attitude was quite disrespectful of the committee and its chair. I hope the affair becomes a full public inquiry when individuals like Mackay will be under oath and their arrogance won’t be allowed to slight the serious business of this country.
On the lighter side of things, let’s take a quick trip to Russia so I can share some of my observations of body language on Moscow streets. Beautiful young Russian women sure can walk. It’s worth the price of air fare just to watch them slide along the sidewalk, silky and stylish, like they were walking down the catwalk at a high-fashion house in Paris.
I have finally figured out what draws me to the body language of Russian women. Unlike North American women, who seem to prefer keeping their torso still during their peregrinations, when Russian women walk they lead with their pelvis, as if to declare to the whole world that Russian women don’t all look like tractors.
Body Language and the Democratic Debate by Dr Nick Morgan 2/1/08
What can the non-verbal communications from Senators Obama and Clinton tell us about the debate last night?
Overall, they performed well. They are two consummate professionals who waited respectfully while the other was talking, said their own bits with minimal fuss, and generally played nice. They were trying hard to get along, and mostly they did. Their non-verbal cues suggest that Obama is a big-picture thinker, impatient with details, and Clinton is a manager who loves to get down in the weeds of policy. Of course, their verbal messages say that too.
But there were a few revealing moments. When Senator Obama responded to the question about a "dream team" of the two of them as President and Veep, Senator Clinton listened hard, turning directly toward him for the first and only time that evening. When he refused to rule out the idea of the joint ticket, saying it was premature and presumptuous, she visibly relaxed, then moved toward him very slightly as he continued to answer.
Conclusion: the Clinton camp HAS thought about asking Obama to be the V-P, and it's still on the table. Depending, of course, on how things go. You heard it here first.
When the debate was finished, Obama stood up and helped Clinton with her chair. Depending on your perspective, this was either a) a nice, gentlemanly thing to do; b) a calculated, sexist put-down; or c)an unscripted attempt to take charge.
The only moment during the debate when Clinton showed real passion was on the immigration issue. She decried a Republican bill to criminalize any attempt to help an illegal alien in passionate terms: "That would have criminalized Jesus Christ and the Good Samaritan."
Conclusion: She's really hot about helping those less fortunate, and working through the system. She's a true product of her church and the system.
ELECTION TELLS (British) Date and Author Unknown
Politicians are getting more and more aware of the impact of how they say things rather than what they say. And we all respond more powerfully and subconsciously to body language than we realise. So where does that leave us when we have to make a decision about who's going to run the country for the next five years? That's right - confused. Do their policies and their personalities match up? Are we blinded to what they're really saying by how they're saying it? The truth about people's relationships and their thoughts is always evident in those actions that they can't control or which they don't know they're producing. Here's a handy guide to the election tells of the 3 main party leaders to help you decide when the wool is being pulled over your eyes!
Tony BlairTony is the consummate politician, difficult to fluster and smooth talking. But there are some interesting leaks and tells that he makes which reveal what he's really thinking.The mug shot - Tony likes to be seen holding a mug. It makes him look workmanlike, a man of the people.Finger puppet - When Tony is making a point emphatically he will often press his thumb onto his forefinger while talking. This is reflection of him symbolically taking control of an issue he's discussing. However, when he is anxious he will play with his little finger.Smile - In this election, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown can be seen frequently smiling and looking at each other while they are speaking. However, you can see from the way that Gordon bites his lip when Tony is challenged that he is secretly amused, trying to control a smile. You can also see when Gordon is speaking that Tony often has his mouth open, a sign that he would rather be doing the talking. Are they as united as they seem?
There are a bunch of House of Commons video clips of Blair at this site:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/video-pmqs-prime-ministers-questions-house-of-commons/
Body language reveals the naked truth
By Allan Markin - Penticton Western News - February 28, 2008
We communicate with each other in many ways. I find our body language the most interesting, perhaps because our physical messages often occur without our realizing it.
Body language can tell us what a person is really like. I’ve been watching Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaign for the Democratic nomination to become the next U.S. president, sure to happen unless the Democrats foul things up as they have done in the past. Remember the fiasco a few years ago when their super delegates chose Walter Mondale?
Now that Obama has taken the lead and is enjoying a surging campaign, Hillary’s body language has been showing signs of desperation. She still smiles sweetly, like somebody’s mom. Then, eyes aglow with disdain and fury, she launches into vituperative attacks on Obama, looking and sounding like a stern mother scolding a son who stayed out past curfew time and came home drunk.
Indeed, where once she looked directly at Obama when he was speaking, suggesting that she had real interest in what he was saying, now she turns away, as if to convey the message that he’s not worth listening to. This body language indicates arrogance, disrespect and feigned self-confidence — messages that will not bolster a faltering campaign.
Someone should tell her that such behaviour is not presidential. True leadership means being magnanimous and rising above small-minded petulance. Obama, to his credit, has been measured and calm in his responses. His body language continues to convey quiet confidence and poise. He looks presidential, even now when the heat on him has been turned up and the scandal-mongering that plagues American politics has emerged from the political slime.
Sometimes body language makes me angry. Recently I watched Elmer Mckay, former MP and cabinet minister in Brian Mulroney’s government, testifying before the Commons Ethics Committee regarding the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Mr. Mackay should be ashamed of his juvenile behaviour.
He slouched arrogantly in his chair like an unrepentant high school student in the principal’s office. He smirked. He played with his glasses. He shrugged. He smiled sweetly. His nonchalant attitude was quite disrespectful of the committee and its chair. I hope the affair becomes a full public inquiry when individuals like Mackay will be under oath and their arrogance won’t be allowed to slight the serious business of this country.
On the lighter side of things, let’s take a quick trip to Russia so I can share some of my observations of body language on Moscow streets. Beautiful young Russian women sure can walk. It’s worth the price of air fare just to watch them slide along the sidewalk, silky and stylish, like they were walking down the catwalk at a high-fashion house in Paris.
I have finally figured out what draws me to the body language of Russian women. Unlike North American women, who seem to prefer keeping their torso still during their peregrinations, when Russian women walk they lead with their pelvis, as if to declare to the whole world that Russian women don’t all look like tractors.
Body Language and the Democratic Debate by Dr Nick Morgan 2/1/08
What can the non-verbal communications from Senators Obama and Clinton tell us about the debate last night?
Overall, they performed well. They are two consummate professionals who waited respectfully while the other was talking, said their own bits with minimal fuss, and generally played nice. They were trying hard to get along, and mostly they did. Their non-verbal cues suggest that Obama is a big-picture thinker, impatient with details, and Clinton is a manager who loves to get down in the weeds of policy. Of course, their verbal messages say that too.
But there were a few revealing moments. When Senator Obama responded to the question about a "dream team" of the two of them as President and Veep, Senator Clinton listened hard, turning directly toward him for the first and only time that evening. When he refused to rule out the idea of the joint ticket, saying it was premature and presumptuous, she visibly relaxed, then moved toward him very slightly as he continued to answer.
Conclusion: the Clinton camp HAS thought about asking Obama to be the V-P, and it's still on the table. Depending, of course, on how things go. You heard it here first.
When the debate was finished, Obama stood up and helped Clinton with her chair. Depending on your perspective, this was either a) a nice, gentlemanly thing to do; b) a calculated, sexist put-down; or c)an unscripted attempt to take charge.
The only moment during the debate when Clinton showed real passion was on the immigration issue. She decried a Republican bill to criminalize any attempt to help an illegal alien in passionate terms: "That would have criminalized Jesus Christ and the Good Samaritan."
Conclusion: She's really hot about helping those less fortunate, and working through the system. She's a true product of her church and the system.
ELECTION TELLS (British) Date and Author Unknown
Politicians are getting more and more aware of the impact of how they say things rather than what they say. And we all respond more powerfully and subconsciously to body language than we realise. So where does that leave us when we have to make a decision about who's going to run the country for the next five years? That's right - confused. Do their policies and their personalities match up? Are we blinded to what they're really saying by how they're saying it? The truth about people's relationships and their thoughts is always evident in those actions that they can't control or which they don't know they're producing. Here's a handy guide to the election tells of the 3 main party leaders to help you decide when the wool is being pulled over your eyes!
Tony BlairTony is the consummate politician, difficult to fluster and smooth talking. But there are some interesting leaks and tells that he makes which reveal what he's really thinking.The mug shot - Tony likes to be seen holding a mug. It makes him look workmanlike, a man of the people.Finger puppet - When Tony is making a point emphatically he will often press his thumb onto his forefinger while talking. This is reflection of him symbolically taking control of an issue he's discussing. However, when he is anxious he will play with his little finger.Smile - In this election, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown can be seen frequently smiling and looking at each other while they are speaking. However, you can see from the way that Gordon bites his lip when Tony is challenged that he is secretly amused, trying to control a smile. You can also see when Gordon is speaking that Tony often has his mouth open, a sign that he would rather be doing the talking. Are they as united as they seem?
There are a bunch of House of Commons video clips of Blair at this site:
http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/video-pmqs-prime-ministers-questions-house-of-commons/
Facial symmetry
Facial symmetry is attractive to us and when the face is animated we look for matching of the each side of the face that is what is going on the right side to match what is going on the left side and matching of the top and bottom of the face. The top of the face from the middle of the eyes up is under less conscious control so if we are looking at someone and the top of the face is doing one thing and the bottom another we may know they are laying or we may just feel uncomfortable.
You’re More Expressive Half
When most people smile or frown, the left half of their face (which is controlled by the right brain) is more emotionally expressive. If you were to cover up half of your face and look in the mirror, you would notice distinct emotional differences in expression. Research studies of people looking at photographs of faces show that when people expose more of their right cheek (the public face) they show less emotion. Exposing more of the left side of the face shows more emotion. When people speak or think emotionally, the eyes tend to dart to the left, and the left arm becomes more active. If someone says, "Let’s talk about it now," the right brain analyzes the paralanguage to determine whether talking about it now will be a fun or perhaps painful experience. And the left emotional side of the face shows it.
You’re More Expressive Half
When most people smile or frown, the left half of their face (which is controlled by the right brain) is more emotionally expressive. If you were to cover up half of your face and look in the mirror, you would notice distinct emotional differences in expression. Research studies of people looking at photographs of faces show that when people expose more of their right cheek (the public face) they show less emotion. Exposing more of the left side of the face shows more emotion. When people speak or think emotionally, the eyes tend to dart to the left, and the left arm becomes more active. If someone says, "Let’s talk about it now," the right brain analyzes the paralanguage to determine whether talking about it now will be a fun or perhaps painful experience. And the left emotional side of the face shows it.
Rudy Guiliani's Body Language
Rudy Giuliani on FOX news Hanity and Comes smiles and laughs more than the rest of candidates. He does this often after self deprecating statements. The smiles are sincere and laughter relaxed so this would seem to indicate that is comfortable with himself. Of all the presidential candidates I have analyzed his gestures are the most sincere. Watch him and notice that the gestures often come before the words. You may have read in my blog before the sincere feelings come first from the heart and then are shown in are body language and paralanguage and then with say the words that reflect them. The order is feel then show then say. When speaking and standing without a podium he clasps his hands together as he collects his thoughts and then opens them dramatically as the feeling bursts out then the words follow.
His mouth: He uses a mixture of smiling laughing and aggressive weapon like finger pointing when he doesn’t like what he has been asked or what an interviewer says. He is not able to pretend or hold in his emotions.
In two interviews he does a tongue thrust, (where the tongue comes out briefly from the mouth), showing his negative feelings as he talked about Washington administration. It was so interesting to see so many Democratic and Republican candidates showing their disrespect for the current administration with their nonverbal cues.
His mouth goes up on the left side of his face showing he is more emotional than rational in his feelings.
When someone expresses freely around the upper eye and forhead and those expressions “match” the lower part of the face hat we “read” them as being more honest. ( A good reason to be careful of getting botox injections)
Gulliani not only shows a lot of expressiveness in the upper eye and forehead the expressions are a match the rest of his face. Humm. Didn’t know till I read all these candidates that he was the most honest.
His mouth: He uses a mixture of smiling laughing and aggressive weapon like finger pointing when he doesn’t like what he has been asked or what an interviewer says. He is not able to pretend or hold in his emotions.
In two interviews he does a tongue thrust, (where the tongue comes out briefly from the mouth), showing his negative feelings as he talked about Washington administration. It was so interesting to see so many Democratic and Republican candidates showing their disrespect for the current administration with their nonverbal cues.
His mouth goes up on the left side of his face showing he is more emotional than rational in his feelings.
When someone expresses freely around the upper eye and forhead and those expressions “match” the lower part of the face hat we “read” them as being more honest. ( A good reason to be careful of getting botox injections)
Gulliani not only shows a lot of expressiveness in the upper eye and forehead the expressions are a match the rest of his face. Humm. Didn’t know till I read all these candidates that he was the most honest.
John Edwards Body Language
Overall John Edwards is an animated enthusiastic candidate and this combined with his attractiveness make him on the surface a charismatic and appealing candidate.
Nonverbally he quite literally talks out of the side of his mouth. Specifically he smiles and expresses more on the right side of his mouth. This side of the face is controlled by the more logical rational left hemisphere. This pulled up right side of the face is more permanent than Obamas. It shows Edwards is more comfortable being logical and more comfortable when he goes to planned talking points. Talking out of the side of the mouth is a nonverbal aspect I see in other politicians. When someone when we see the twist on the right side it makes it appear that the person is lying and when we see this as a habitual cue or a permanent facial aspect it appears that the person makes a habit of lying. Of course things like strokes can effect facial expression and may effect vice president Cheneys mouth twist.
John Edward eyes open wide and the eyebrows shoot up and his voice gets more animated when he goes to his planned talking points. He also does this unusual movement, he moves upward when he says his preplanned talking points. Specifically, His shoulders come up, his neck stretches up and his head all go up as he gets to a planned talking point.
Nonverbally he quite literally talks out of the side of his mouth. Specifically he smiles and expresses more on the right side of his mouth. This side of the face is controlled by the more logical rational left hemisphere. This pulled up right side of the face is more permanent than Obamas. It shows Edwards is more comfortable being logical and more comfortable when he goes to planned talking points. Talking out of the side of the mouth is a nonverbal aspect I see in other politicians. When someone when we see the twist on the right side it makes it appear that the person is lying and when we see this as a habitual cue or a permanent facial aspect it appears that the person makes a habit of lying. Of course things like strokes can effect facial expression and may effect vice president Cheneys mouth twist.
John Edward eyes open wide and the eyebrows shoot up and his voice gets more animated when he goes to his planned talking points. He also does this unusual movement, he moves upward when he says his preplanned talking points. Specifically, His shoulders come up, his neck stretches up and his head all go up as he gets to a planned talking point.
Presidential Debates
As a body language expert for the last 25 years I was asked by Fox and Friends to analyze the republican candidates last night during the debates. I discussed their nonverbal cues live as a guest on Fox and Friends this morning at 7:15.
There was so much more to say, but specifically I wanted to say that viewers should be aware that “Charisma” factors and other nonverbal elements sometimes override our ability to really hear a candidate’s verbal message.
We tend to look for cues of Credibility, Likeability, Attractiveness and Level of Dominance (Power). I misspoke this morning and said Romney was high on Attractiveness and Credibility, rather than Attractiveness and Likeability. Most critics said that Romney won the debates last night. Well he was the tallest candidate, giving him nonverbal power. (The taller of the last two candidates in the presidential race typically wins.) And he was by far the most attractive candidate. Even his deep resonant voice is pleasing. And he smiles a lot and last night successfully used his smile to not look irritated when Chris Mathews gave him a hard time. Yet he has a habitual nonverbal cue that makes him look like a liar or a least a waffeler on the issues. When I taught interviews and interrogation techniques to law enforcement officers one the key signs that someone is lying is making an affirmative statement while shaking your head no. Again this is a reliable cue of deceit. When the verbal and the nonverbal message disagree we read the nonverbal cue as the honest cue as it is under less conscious control and not as easily manipulated.
There was so much more to say, but specifically I wanted to say that viewers should be aware that “Charisma” factors and other nonverbal elements sometimes override our ability to really hear a candidate’s verbal message.
We tend to look for cues of Credibility, Likeability, Attractiveness and Level of Dominance (Power). I misspoke this morning and said Romney was high on Attractiveness and Credibility, rather than Attractiveness and Likeability. Most critics said that Romney won the debates last night. Well he was the tallest candidate, giving him nonverbal power. (The taller of the last two candidates in the presidential race typically wins.) And he was by far the most attractive candidate. Even his deep resonant voice is pleasing. And he smiles a lot and last night successfully used his smile to not look irritated when Chris Mathews gave him a hard time. Yet he has a habitual nonverbal cue that makes him look like a liar or a least a waffeler on the issues. When I taught interviews and interrogation techniques to law enforcement officers one the key signs that someone is lying is making an affirmative statement while shaking your head no. Again this is a reliable cue of deceit. When the verbal and the nonverbal message disagree we read the nonverbal cue as the honest cue as it is under less conscious control and not as easily manipulated.
Romney does it all the time. I have watched hours and hours of his speeches before last night and couldn’t believe it. Last night Romney said, “The American People are the greatest people in the world.” while he shook his head no. Then followed he followed this statement with something like, “The hearts of the American people are the greatest…”, while shaking his head no. And then said, “American is the greatest nation on earth.” while shaking his head no. Typically, someone who does this habitually lies or often waffles on his statements. It will be interesting to see this and other candidate’s nonverbal cues as they continue to speak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)