The “fighting rules” were strict, allowing little interaction.
The candidates had to stay six feet apart, in their designated area.
******* (I have listed some of the debate rules at the bottom of the article).
Thank goodness there were no lecterns, just chairs upon which to perch while the other was speaking. This way, we could see more of the candidate’s bodies despite the fact that the other debating rules meant there was little engagement with each other. They would have very little interpersonal debate, but rather give “short speeches” in response to questions asked.
Obama came onto the stage in a long relaxed stroll. In this debate Obama was respectful and McCain did not have to tap him to get him to shake hands. They shook hands each grasping the other’s elbow in the classic politician’s handshake showing power and control.McCain had more energy than I had ever seen him have. His voice tone and energy was often positive and hopeful. He was coached well to be upbeat in the beginning of the debate but, overused that “we can do it”, “we are Americans” hopefulness later in the debate when he should have been mad at Obama for aligning him with Bush and calling him on it.
At the beginning of the debates Obama was calm, blank eyed and seemed more coached and less passionate and at times although he kept gesturing, his eyes seemed dead eyed. . While Obama spoke McCain paced the stage a bit nervously.McCain needed to be strong in this debate, show more energy confidence and power than Obama. Obama needed to be more cool, collected and in control. McCain showed more energy but overall did not seem presidential. He has more knowledge but his energy was wasted in attacks, verbal and nonverbal. He walked toward towards Obama as he attacked, but then would step back. Neither move showing strength. He often showed snarly smirking facial expressions as he walked toward Obama and pointed at him in little jabs. While discussing the Bush/Cheney-backed energy bill "stuffed full" of goodies for the oil companies. "Know who voted for it? That one," he says, not looking at Obama. "Know who voted against it? I did..." This was the biggest nonverbal memorable moment in the debate and was all negative for McCain. A big mistake.
Powerful debaters let attackers come to them and smile or act bored. Obama smiled as if McCain's attack didn’t mean a thing. McCain needed to show his confidence and superior experience knowledge but with the exception of a few questions, like what we should do about Russia, his true deep knowledge was not shown.
Obama attacked McCain during the debates by standing near his chair or walking forward using his hand to make fists. He didn’t look at him, and that worked. I didn’t like any of the attacks but Obama’s method of attack worked.
While McCain talked and Obama waited and listen for his next question, Obama sat on his stool with one leg down up with his foot resting on the bar with his legs spread open to take a posture of “cool power.”
I could almost see a black and white photo of him in that same pose on the cover of a jazz CD. This was not the same pausing, awkward Obama. His coaching between the debates was clear. Answer the questions quickly and strongly. Often Obama leapt out of the chair and strode toward Moderator Brokaw as he answered Brokaw's question. Obama loves a podium. He was more awkward in the town hall setting. He had a hard time at first approaching the audience and individual questioners. But, gained confidence later and scribbled notes more frequently. His notebook spilling over the small table.With the physical; contrast one tall and slender, the other short and older; their physical differences seemed more pronounced as they walked on the stage in this setting.
Remember, we tend to choose the winning candidate in a debate seconds after it begins. Typically, we make these choices based on the charismatic factors of Likeability, attractiveness and level of dominance. Though McCain was more comfortable in the town hall format and sincerely engaged the people and talked to the questioners in an authentically warm way, his gestures showed up too late. Obama had it made before he opened his mouth.More notes to come later today. In the meantime, check out this story with me and several other experts:http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-debateside8-2008oct08,0,4755608.story********The format: Under the terms of a 31-page Memorandum of Understanding, Candidates must stay in their designated areas. The NBC host Tom Brokaw will moderate, picking questions from a pool 150 undecided voters from the Nashville area, pre-selected by Gallup so that they're demographically representative. The live questioners will ask their questions directly, and Brokaw will intersperse them with selections from a reported six million others received by email. Cameras aren't allowed to show the reactions of the live questioners -- just their initial questions. Tom Brokaw will identify a person and call on them; the questioner will ask the question, and then be seated. The candidate to whom the question was posed will have two minutes to respond, and then the other candidate will have two minutes. Then there'll be one minute of open discussion.
Showing posts with label presidential debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential debate. Show all posts
Vice Presidential Debates--Palin and Biden’s Body Language
My Ramblings on Body Language:
The non interaction rule set by McCain’s team worked to Biden’s benefit. His usual over the top anger and ranting was much more restrained. Yes, Biden was angry. Yes, he pointed and used one handed and two handed chopping motions to make his points, but this time his anger made Biden appear earnest and sincere.
Yes, he got angry at Palin very early in the debate and he occasionally pointed his finger at her and many times he jumped in to say she was wrong before he was called on. Still, he could have been more attacking and he would have looked far worse.
Palin started with a smile and kept a smile on for most of the debate. Click here to hear my comments on the O'reilly Factor: http://www.pattiwood.net or read the interview below.
Palin walks the “B line” well.
What is the B line?
Well, women have to walk a line between being too feminine and being perceived as weak or going too far to the other side of the line and being perceived as a B***ch. Powerful women have the hardest time with it. Hilary Clinton didn’t have a problem choosing. She stayed strong and in doing so came across too far on the “B side”.
Palin wants to be more feminine so she uses her beautiful beauty queen smile to mask her anger. At times, especially near the end of the debate, the smile became a “snarl” and made her look condescending. We don’t like “masking smiles” on powerful people.
Palin did a little blinking when she started but not the highly nervous 50 to 60 blinks per minute or the 80 blinks per minute often called the “Nixon effect”. She went to her strength, her down home folksy manner of delivery. Her little "betcha’s" and other contractions were a little much when she talked about the big issues, but overall they evoked a “ Reaganistic” warmth and the approval ratings soared. Tune in for more as I talk about Palin’s winks and Biden's head tilts later...
To view my ABC News article and more on this subject visit my site.
The non interaction rule set by McCain’s team worked to Biden’s benefit. His usual over the top anger and ranting was much more restrained. Yes, Biden was angry. Yes, he pointed and used one handed and two handed chopping motions to make his points, but this time his anger made Biden appear earnest and sincere.
Yes, he got angry at Palin very early in the debate and he occasionally pointed his finger at her and many times he jumped in to say she was wrong before he was called on. Still, he could have been more attacking and he would have looked far worse.
Palin started with a smile and kept a smile on for most of the debate. Click here to hear my comments on the O'reilly Factor: http://www.pattiwood.net or read the interview below.
Palin walks the “B line” well.
What is the B line?
Well, women have to walk a line between being too feminine and being perceived as weak or going too far to the other side of the line and being perceived as a B***ch. Powerful women have the hardest time with it. Hilary Clinton didn’t have a problem choosing. She stayed strong and in doing so came across too far on the “B side”.
Palin wants to be more feminine so she uses her beautiful beauty queen smile to mask her anger. At times, especially near the end of the debate, the smile became a “snarl” and made her look condescending. We don’t like “masking smiles” on powerful people.
Palin did a little blinking when she started but not the highly nervous 50 to 60 blinks per minute or the 80 blinks per minute often called the “Nixon effect”. She went to her strength, her down home folksy manner of delivery. Her little "betcha’s" and other contractions were a little much when she talked about the big issues, but overall they evoked a “ Reaganistic” warmth and the approval ratings soared. Tune in for more as I talk about Palin’s winks and Biden's head tilts later...
To view my ABC News article and more on this subject visit my site.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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)