Nonverbal cues & body language

Post Reply New Topic

I've never felt that I had any issues with guestures or facial expressions. I think I can relatively accurately determine someone's mood by their facial expression. But as I sit here and think, I can't really decide if I understand body language or not. I can't think of any examples.... I think that means I'm not good at it haha.

I do know that I pay very little attention to the people around me.

I just realized the other day that I pay much more attention to words spoken then to actions. I realized this by having the TV on mute. If I don't have the subtitles on, I have very little idea what is going on. If I have the subtitles on and I am reading them I can't watch the picture very well since I am terrible at multitasking but I have a clear idea of what is happening.
When I told this to my husband, he said he can tell what is going on when there is no sound or subtitles. He has told me before that there is a lot in communication that is implied beyond the spoken word and that I never get it.
Interesting.

I am the same way.

Do you suppose that paying more attention to words than to actions is what makes Aspies so naive? I find so often that when someone says they'll do something, in my mind, it's already done. Then they forget about it, or change their mind, or whatever it is that I can't comprehend, and I feel surprised every single time.

Then I go 'round the bend about it: "Do words mean NOTHING? Why do people SAY these things if they're not going to DO them?" My husband just shakes his head and says, "What do you want from me? It's how people are" to which I invariably reply "Well, *I'M* not like that," to which he invariably replies, "I know you're not, but you have trouble imagining that someone could work differently from you."

Mind blindness 101. Why did I even bother getting a diagnosis?

Lol neshamaruach! I could have written exactly what you just said. This is one of my biggest issues with my husband. I often take it to be irresponsibility on his part. Am I wrong? Or is it just 'how people are'

It's how some people are. And there are degrees. My husband doesn't just say something and then go back on it for no good reason. He says something, and then I plan on it, and then something comes up and the plan needs to change. He acts as though it's no big deal, which, unless you're completely dependent on predictability and routine, it isn't. It's hardly ever a big deal. My having to adjust to it is a huge deal.

My husband now realizes how much words mean to me and takes care to let me know explicitly if there is a possibility that a plan could change. For my part, I've pretty much given into the reality that much of life is out of my control and I have to learn to handle it without a meltdown. Which I do, for the most part. Except the other night, when I cried over a change in plan regarding another parent and carpooling. But I do much better than I used to. Really.

Plenty.
As well you should. I strongly approve!
I'm not entirely sure where your question lies though.
We know that no culture or society ever observed lacks non-verbal communication. We know that no society ever observed, explicitly teaches all the complexities of non-verbal communication to their children, and few in any society can explicitly explain the range of non-verbal communication they have mastered in praxis. We also know that like verbal language, non-verbal language is culturally specific, and that ethnicity does not determine which culturally specific non-verbal language a person will learn. We also know (from observation) that the learning starts very young. Toddlers are already somewhat adept in non-verbal communication specific to their culture (although usually less adept than a 5 year old, who is usually less adept than a 10 year old...etc).
So learning non-verbal communication is something universal to human young, but culturally specific in detail, while explicitly teaching it is not something known to widely occur in any human culture. We also can detect the effects of the learning at a very young age so know the learning must start very young (in fact early child-hood research can detect some of the likely mechanisms entailed, for instance very young babies preference the tracking of human faces over other stimulus in their environment).



Evolutionary stability refers to whether a trait (under genetic influence) will remain stable (relatively fixed within a population) under (evolutionary) pressures of selection in the face of alternative competing (genetically influenced) traits.

Everyone being honest and forthright is not evolutionarily stable because of what happens when one person is not (they are advantaged, and as a result would be expected to perpetuate their genes to a greater extent than the rest of the population, and the same would be true of any off-spring sharing the trait). Any population who universally said what they meant, would sooner or later 'throw up' an individual who did not, and that individual's advantage would be great enough that they would perpetuate their genes at higher numbers, as would those off-spring who share the alternative (genetically influenced) trait, until they became the majority and eventually predominate in the gene-pool. The fitness of the 'straight ups' would be less as more 'deceivers' enter the population, resulting eventually in total replacement.

I'm not really sure. I am actually sensitive some types of body language but not all. For instance, I can easily tell when someone is nervous or uncomfortable because I involuntarily pick up some kind of “vibe” and become nervous myself. I guess what I’m picking up is the “fight or flight” signals. Other types of body language I’m not really aware of as much.

This is really fascinating stuff, pandd. How do you know all this? Are you a psychologist, or is this a special interest?

I like anthropology quite a bit.

Anthropologists are interested in 'what it is to be human'. From becoming biologically human, through to social/cultural diversity, and all the interesting stuffs entailed and in between.

Pan, this is precisely what I surmised not long ago . . .

Clue # 1 was Desmond Morris pointing out that virtually every population worldwide experienced infidelity, and he identified it as a successful reproduction strategy. The universality of the thing shocked me at first. But it makes sense. If an individual can distribute genes in more than a single line, it's evolutionarily advantageous, and those genes will become a larger segment of the total genetic pool. This is part of a very (IMO) dark personal theory of human development. In the high demographic environment of urban/agricultural societies, where ANONYMITY can be achieved, infidelity as a reproduction strategy is selected for. It's the high population/demographics that are the new environment, and the NTs are the new adaptation. Guess who is being "replaced?"

We are so doomed. lol.

Of course infidelity has costs for the 'cock-hold', so we might also expect counter-infidelity measures to arise. Sexually transmitted diseases also must be considered. None the less, it would be very unlikely that if a propensity for infidelity can be a genetically influenced trait, that such a trait would fail to reach fixation in a large population, at least at low levels. Arguably it has the potential to fix at high levels in the right circumstances.

I was just having a look around an interesting site that another member (Vulcan) put up a link to and found this tip-bit (regarding relative out-group vs in-group aggression);

Similarly, the testosterone surge a man often has in the presence of a potential mate is muted if the woman is in a relationship with his friend. Again, the effect is to reduce competition within the group, says Flinn.

Last edited by pandd on 10 Dec 2008, 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

2 of my friends got degrees in Anthropology. One of them got her Masters and the other is now working as a receptionist at a health clinic. I guess it's one of those fields where it's difficult to get a job unless you have a Masters or PhD.

There are a lot of sub-fields in anthropology and career paths vary quite a bit. Some sub-fields, I cannot imagine the under-grad degree by itself would get one started in a career. For instance a cultural/social anthropology BA has limited career value unless teamed with some other degree or skill.

I can just remember lots of times as a kid and teenager I had to ask someone how they knew what an other person was feeling and they said "just by looking at them". An example would be tiredness/shyness etc...And so because I've learned non-verbal language over the years I still get a lot of them mixed up and I always end up assuming people are either very angry with me or happy....its that kind of black and white thinking I struggle with but I cant distinguish the finer emotional states. Also if someone is actually directing their anger somewhere else I always instantly assume it must be directed at me.

in the army I was harassed over my lack of appropriate body language. I was called "tone-deaf" and "robotic."

We are digital, NT's are analogue.

Language to us is Yes, no, maybe. To NT's it is Yes, no (insinuate yes), maybe (insinuate yes).

I have problems reading those things but I was born with a rare low vision disorder in addition to my AS & my brain can have problems processing stuff I can see well sometimes like I could look rite at something I can see well & not realize it's there rite away.