LT. Kimo Bandmann of Utah with the 405 Civil Affairs Unit and part of a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT),speaks with residents during a visit to the village of Pushtay January 9, 2010 in Pushtay, Afghanistan. Soldiers, from Forward Operating Base (FOB) Orgun-E in Paktika Province, went to the village to inquire about their needs and concerns.
Having recently watched 'The Hurt Locker' it brings home the importance of being able to quickly and accurately 'read people' where the stakes of not being able to accurately identify emotion, intent, and threat of danger can mean you are dead. I leave politics totally aside in this series, the men and women who serve in highly dangerous arenas are not thinking about politics when they are being placed in these situations, they are thinking only of survival. Over the course of the next several months I will post articles that will directly address the challenges of "reading people" who are serving overseas.
In this particular situation we see LT. Kimo Bandmann speaking with a villager. The villager has his arms crossed, which generally means a lack of wanting to participate, and at the same time seems to have a pleasant smile on his face.
It is always disconcerting when you are in a potentially dangerous situation and you cannot see their hands. It would be wise to control the situation and ask to see their hands. This is not always possible in "social situations" but it is safer.
More "aggressive" gestures are allowable in the middle east, where people expect dominant people in positions of power to display their 'right' to dominance and control. To not show some dominance is a sign of weakness. This often comes into conflict with those that have been taught to be polite, regardless of the situation. LT. Kimo Bandmann is showing some dominance by the way he his holding one hand higher and in a modified pointing manner.◦
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Serving Our Country Series: Gestures Have Meaning
PART ONE: A Four-Domain Model for Detecting Deception: Comfort/Discomfort
Written by Guest Contributor Joe Navarro.
Joe Navarro is a 25 year veteran of the FBI where he served on the National Security Division's Behavioral Analysis Program. He is on the adjunct faculty at Saint Leo University and the Institute for Intergovernmental Research where he teaches nonverbal communications. For 35 years he has been teaching and utilizing the study of nonverbal communications as well as its practical applications in everyday use and in forensic settings. He has lectured throughout the world including Wayne State University School of Medicine and at the Baylor College of Medicine - Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences in Houston, Texas. Mr. Navarro brings together his academic background, scientific research, and practical experience catching spies to the art of observing and interpreting human behavior. Mr. Navarro is also the author of: Advanced Interviewing Techniques: Proven Strategies for Law Enforcement, Military, and Security Personnel
For 30 years, the literature on interviewing has emphasized the use of both verbal and nonverbal cues in detecting deception during the interview process. Much of that emphasis paralleled the immense amount of research during that same time period in the area of psychology and the study of nonverbal behavior.
Unfortunately, many people still misinterpret a significant amount of nonverbal behavior as indicative of deception when, in fact, it just may be nervousness or such behavior as face touching that also can indicate honesty.
Repeated studies have shown that traditional methods of detecting deception during interviews succeed only 50 percent of the time, even for experienced law enforcement officers.
In spite of this, investigators still need the ability to test the veracity of those they interview. To do so, investigators require a model that incorporates research
with empirical experience to differentiate honesty from deception.
They can use an alternative paradigm for detecting deception based on four critical domains:
- comfort/discomfort
- emphasis
- synchrony
- perception management.
Comfort/Discomfort
Comfort is readily apparent in conversations with family members and friends. People sense when others have a good time and when they feel comfortable in their presence. Experiencing comfort in the presence of strangers becomes more difficult, especially in stressful situations, such as during an interview. A person’s level of comfort or discomfort is one of the most important clues interviewers should focus on when trying to establish veracity. Tension and distress most often manifest upon guilty people who must carry the knowledge of their crimes with them. Attempting to disguise their guilt places a distressing cognitive load on them as they struggle to fabricate answers to what otherwise would be simple questions.
When comfortable, an individual’s nonverbal behavior tends to mirror the other person present. For example, if one person leans forward, the other tends to do so as well. Or, if one leans to the side with hands in pockets and feet
crossed, the other person may do the same. Subconsciously, people demonstrate their comfort with whom they are talking. When touched, people may touch back to emphasize a point. Some may display their comfort more openly, such as showing more of their torso and the insides of their arms and legs. People who speak the truth more often display comfort because they have no stress to conceal nor do they have guilty knowledge to make them feel uncomfortable.
While seated at a table, people comfortable with each other will move objects aside so that nothing blocks their view. Over time, they may draw closer so that they do not have to talk as loud, and their breathing rhythm, tone of speech, pitch, and general demeanor will become similar.
Subtleties of comfort contrast with discomfort. People show discomfort when they do not like what is happening to them, what they are seeing or hearing, or when others compel them to talk about things that they would prefer to keep hidden. People first display discomfort physiologically—heart rates quicken, hairs stand up, perspiration increases, and breathing becomes faster. Beyond the physiological responses, which are autonomic and require very little thinking, people primarily manifest
discomfort nonverbally instead of vocally. They tend to move their bodies by rearranging themselves, jiggling their feet, fidgeting, or drumming their fingers when scared, nervous, or significantly uncomfortable.
If, while the interviewer remains relaxed and poised, the interviewee continually looks at the clock, sits tensely, or does not move (“flash frozen”), the interviewer may discern a lack of comfort even though everything may appear normal to the untrained eye.
Interviewees show discomfort when they repeatedly talk about finalizing the interview or when disruptions appeal to them. People tend to distance themselves from those with whom they feel uncomfortable. Even while sitting side by side, people will lean away from those with whom they feel uncomfortable, often moving either their torsos or their feet away or toward an exit, which nonverbally exhibits displeasure.
These actions can occur in interviews due to the subject matter discussed. Likewise, people create artificial barriers with either their shoulders and arms or with inanimate objects in front of them. For example, by the end of one interview, a very uncomfortable and dishonest interviewee had built a little barrier in front of himself using soda cans, pencil holders, and various documents, ultimately planting a backpack on the table between himself and the interviewer. At the time, the interviewer did notrecognize the subject’s obvious intent of creating a barrier.
Other clear signs of discomfort include rubbing the forehead near the temple region, squeezing the face, rubbing the neck, or stroking the back of the head with the hand.
Interviewees often will show their displeasure by rolling their eyes out of disrespect; picking lint off themselves (preening); talking down to the interviewer; giving short answers; becoming resistant, hostile, or sarcastic; or displaying “micro gestures” with indecent connotations, such as “giving the finger.”
Eyes also serve as formidable communicators of discomfort, yet investigators often ignore them during interviews. People use their eyes as a blocking mechanism similar to folding their arms across their chest or turning away from those with whom they disagree. In a similar response, when people do not like something they hear, they usually close their eyes as if to block out what they just heard. They do this subconsciously and so often that others do not pay attention to it in day-to-day affairs. People may close their eyes before touching or rubbing them as if to further block or relieve themselves of what they just heard. Interviewers can capitalize on this behavior by noting when interviewees block with their eyes. This may point to questions that trouble the subject or to issues with which they are struggling. In most cases, eye blocking proves extremely accurate in highlighting issues problematic to the interviewee.
Additionally, when people feel troubled or frustrated or they have a subdued temper tantrum, their eyelids may close or flutter rapidly as an expression of their sentiment.
Research also has shown that when people are nervous or troubled, their blink rate increases, a phenomenon often seen with liars under stress.
In one case where investigators closely videotaped the interviewee, observers in another room catalogued the subject’s blink rate increase from 27 times per minute to 84 times a minute during stressful questions. Investigators should consider all of the eye manifestations that fall under the comfort/discomfort domain as powerful clues to how subjects register information or what questions prove problematic.
When interpreting eye contact, however, many misconceptions still exist. Little or no eye contact is perceived erroneously by some as a classic sign of deception, especially during questioning, while the truthful should “lock eyes.” This may be accurate for some but not for all. For instance, research shows that Machiavellian people actually will increase eye contact during deception.
This may occur because they know that many interviewers look for this feature. Also, some people learned to look down or away from parental authority as a
form of respect when questioned or scolded. Investigators should remain aware of changes in eye contact and eye behavior during interviews. They should establish the interviewee’s default pattern of eye behavior during benign questioning then look for changes or indicators of discomfort as the interview progresses, which often gives clues to deception.
Sources
Fred E. Inbau and et. al., Criminal
Interrogation and Confessions, 4th ed.
(Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers, Inc.,
2001), ix.
Charles V. Ford, Lies! Lies! Lies!: The
Psychology of Deceit (Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press, Inc., 1996), 200.
Ibid., 217.
B.M. DePaulo, J.I. Stone, and G.D.
Lassiter, Deceiving and Detecting Deceit, in
The Self and Social Life, edited by B.R.
Schlender, (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
1985), 323-370.
Mark L. Knapp and Judith A. Hall,
Nonverbal Communication in Human
Interaction, 3d ed. (Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, College Publishers, 1997), 277.
Paul Ekman, Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit
in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage
(New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1985),
185.
Gavin De Becker, The Gift of Fear (New
York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1997), 133.
David G. Givens, The Nonverbal
Dictionary of Gestures, Signs & Body
Language Cues (Spokane, WA: Center for
Nonverbal Studies, 1998-2002); http://
members.aol.com/nonverbal2/diction1.htm
Joe Navarro and John R. Schafer,
“Detecting Deception,” FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, July 2001, 10.
“Suggesting the principles of conduct laid
down by Machiavelli; specifically marked by
cunning, duplicity, or bad faith,” Merriam
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed., s.v.
“Machiavellian.”
R.E. Exline, J. Thibaut, C.B. Hickey, and
P. Gumpert, Visual Interaction in Relation to
Machiavellianism and an Unethical Act, in R.
Christie and F.L. Geis (eds.), Studies in
Machiavellianism (New York, NY: Academic
Press, 1970).
Joe Navarro has a new book releasing soon, preorder it today, Louder Than Words: Take Your Career from Average to Exceptional with the Hidden Power of Nonverbal Intelligence
Join us tomorrow when we explore the second domain...◦
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Showing Interest with a Head Tilt in Converstation
Spanish actress Paz Vega attends Goya cinema awards press conference at Academia de Cine on January 9, 2010 in Madrid, Spain.
When listening to another speak and we tilt our heads there are several different meanings depending on the context.
Here we see this actress tilt her head which is a sign of actively thinking about what is being said.
Other things that a tilt head could mean is thinking about a response, can mean the person is curious, or in certain cases is a sign of submissiveness.
We also see a modified gesture of the high confidence steeple: 
◦
Trick of the Stars
Zac Efron acted quite camera shy while girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens held tightly to his arm as they left a showing of Avatar in Los Angeles, CA on January 3, 2010.
People in the public eye, who are constantly being photographed by Paparazzi, have a few tricks to ruin the picture. Off course we've all seen the sunglasses that cover the eyes, but as we see Zac do here, we see him also cover his mouth.
I also see this behavior often, especially when moving through public areas such as hotel lobbies, it is an attempt to remain as anonymous as possible and not attract attention to themselves. The more they conceal of their faces the less likely that they will be recognized and stopped by others wanting an opportunity to meet the star. If they travel with security, the security are usually well in front and in back of them so it does not appear like the star has an entourage- which would defeat the concealment of their identify.
Camera-shy Ryan Phillippe hides his face as he leaves West Hollywood's Katsuya restaurant.
It is also why several high profile stars ride motorcycles with full helmets, they become just another normal guy getting from one place to another.
Orlando Bloom makes a speedy exit on his Ducati motorcycle.
Father and son Bruce and Brody Jenner do a spot of shopping at the Malibu Country Marketplace before riding off on their motorcycles. Bruce grabbed a bite to eat alone before meeting with his son, Brody.
Harrison Ford takes a break from his Sunday morning motorbike ride to grab a cup of coffee in Malibu. He chats to fellow motorcyclists before getting back on his BMW GS and hitting the road.
Ryan Phillippe enjoys a hamburger at Hamburger Haven and then rides his motorcycle around town in the beautiful sunny California weather. ◦
Friday, January 8, 2010
Truth or Consequences: Training Police to Lie
Written by Guest Contributor Valerie Van Brocklin.
Police lie. It's a regular part of their job. They lie to suspects and others in hopes of obtaining evidence. These investigative lies cover a wide range of deception -- a range that can get murky. Some investigative lies are legal, some are not, and some generate significant disagreement amongst courts, the public, and even officers themselves.
There are serious consequences here. Officers can
• Be sanctioned by the courts
• Have to defend against a lawsuit
• Be disciplined in the job
• Lose the public confidence
• Have evidence suppressed, a case dismissed and a criminal freed.
Are we properly preparing officers for the potentially career and case-ending decisions they face in this arena? Hardly. Read on to begin to change that. Proper training in this complex arena is critical.
Not All Lies Are Created Equal
Effective interrogation of a suspect nearly always involves a lie – expressed or implied. That lie is that it's in a suspect's best interest to talk to police and confess without an attorney present. It's not. A completely truthful officer would tell suspects this. A completely truthful officer would also find confessions extremely rare.1 And confessions, as Martha Stewart would say, are a good thing. Just ask the Supreme Court -- “Admissions of guilt are more than merely ‘desirable,' they are essential to society's compelling interest in finding, convicting and punishing those who violate the law.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte , 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973).
But just as important, “The police must obey the law while enforcing the law.” Spano v. New York , 360 U.S. 315, 320 (1959). So, what's the law when it comes to police lying to suspects to get confessions? Courts agree due process requires that confessions be voluntary. That means they can't be coerced. And courts agree coercion can be psychological as well as physical. Finally, courts across the land pretty much agree they'll decide whether the confession was voluntary or coerced based on a “totality of the circumstances.” Those circumstances can include such things as:
• Police conduct – what officers say and do and how they say and do it.
• The environment – are police questioning the suspect in a 6' X 8' windowless, stuffy room with Spartan furnishings where they stand between him and the only exit?
• The suspect's age and mental status.
• The length of the interrogation and whether police offer refreshment, bathroom or other breaks.
• Etc. – anything else that bears on the coercive nature, or not, of the interrogation.
One Person's Lie May Be Another's Coercion
Now that we have the basics on the law, we should all be able to agree on what deception is legal and what isn't, right? Let's see. You work the following case and we'll compare results.
Seventeen-year-old Deborah Margolin was brutally murdered. According to her brothers, she was sitting on the porch of her rural home when a stranger drove up and told her a calf was loose at the bottom of the driveway. Deborah went to get the animal – and never returned. Later the same day, her father found her mutilated body face down in a creek.
When you and other officers arrive, Deborah's brothers describe the stranger and his vehicle. You recall that Miller lives nearby, and he and his car match the descriptions. Miller has been previously convicted of a sex offense and arrested for statutory rape.
That night, you and another officer question Miller at his job. He agrees to accompany you to the station for further questioning. He's taken into an interrogation room and read his rights, which he waives. The interrogation is taped, so its circumstances are not in dispute. (This is an excellent reason to tape suspect interrogations.)
It's clear that you, the interviewing detective, make no threats and engage in no physical coercion. On the contrary, you assume a friendly, understanding manner (itself deceptive, que no? ) and speak in a soft tone of voice. You also give Miller certain information, some of which is false. You initially tell Miller Deborah is still alive. Later you say she has just died. In fact, she was found dead many hours earlier. Throughout the interview, you emphasize that whoever committed such a crime has mental problems and is desperately in need of psychological treatment. You tell Miller you believe he committed the crime and then you present yourself as a friend who wants to help if he'll just unburden himself. You state several times that Miller is not a criminal who should be punished but a sick individual who should receive help. One hour into the interview Miller confesses, then collapses, and is taken to the hospital.
This is a real case – Miller v. Fenton , 796 F.2d 598 (3 rd Cir. 1986). Do you think the brutal murder and the investigation were getting any media attention and public interest?
Before trial, Miller moved to suppress his confession on the grounds the detective's method of interrogation constituted psychological manipulation of such magnitude that it rendered his confession involuntary. The trial court denied the defense motion and Miller was convicted at a trial in which his confession was admitted.
End of story, justice prevails, right? Not quite. Miller appealed his conviction, arguing the same thing. And the 3-judge appellate court? They unanimously reversed the conviction. Based on the same facts, they rule the detective engaged in deceptive coercion that “shocked the conscience” and violated due process. End of story?
Not yet. The state supreme court reinstated the conviction -- but only by the hair's breadth of a 4:3 split decision. After that, Miller took his appeal through federal district court and the United States Supreme Court, and had his conviction affirmed on procedural grounds with neither federal court addressing whether the police conduct was unlawfully deceptive.
The moral of this agonizingly long story? Courts are judges, judges are lawyers – and “you can't get two lawyers to agree to kill a rat in a bathtub.”2 This is a complex arena officers must enter every day. An arena that even judges on the same court, looking at the same facts and applying the same law – with the benefit of briefs, the arguments of counsel and the assistance of law clerks -- disagree on.
And what are the possible consequences for officers if they get it “wrong” (that is, a court later disagrees with them) in the crucible of a high profile investigation of a horrific crime?
• The confession may be suppressed, along with any “fruits of the poisonous tree.”
• The case may be dismissed if there is insufficient evidence without the suppressed evidence.
• The officer and, by extension, the entire department may face public condemnation and the censure of the court in a written opinion. (Recall that the 3-judge appellate court in Miller wrote that the police deception “shocked the conscience.”)
• If the case is high profile and politically hot enough, officers may face job discipline over their use of deception, even if they cleared it with the local prosecutor ahead of time. (Just ask the FBI agents who questioned Richard Jewel in the Atlanta Olympics bombing case.)
Courts Agree to Disagree
To delve further into the arena in which officers find themselves, let's look at a few other court rulings. In State v. Cayward , 552 So. 2d 971 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1989) , police interviewed a 19-year-old suspect in the rape and murder of his 5-year-old niece. Prior to the interview, police checked with the local prosecutor who said it was lawful for them to falsely tell the suspect they'd had the victim's underwear scientifically tested and the results showed semen stains on it from him -- and to show him a false lab report of the results. The suspect came to the station voluntarily, waived his Miranda rights, and consistently denied any involvement during two hours of interview.
Police then told him about the test results and showed him two made up reports – one on a lab form and one on a police department form. The suspect confessed. We all know that isn't the end of the story. The Florida appellate court suppressed the confession. The court held the verbal lie was lawful but false physical reports of the lie violated due process. Notably, the court seemed much more concerned that such reports could inadvertently make their way into court records and be mistakenly viewed as true than with the coercive effect of the reports on the defendant. End of story on showing false documents to suspects? Not by a long shot. Remember judges are lawyers and …, well, you know.
In Arthur v. Commonwealth , 480 S.E. 2d 749 (Va. 1997), the Virginia Court of Appeals held that police showing a suspect “dummy” reports indicating his fingerprints and hair were found at the crime scene did not violate due process. The court addressed the Cayward court's concern by noting the police kept the false documents in a separate file from the actual investigative and lab reports.
In Sheriff, Washoe Co. v. Bessey, 914 P. 2d 618 (Nev. 1996), the Nevada Supreme Court criticized Cayward' s distinction between a verbal lie by police and one “embodied in a piece of paper” and concluded there was no real difference. The court upheld police creating a “falsified lab report” showing a defendant had committed a sexual assault against a minor, stating, “[T]here was nothing about the fabricated document presented in this case which would have produced a false confession.” The Nevada court seems to say that due process is violated only if the police deception would coerce an innocent person into confessing.
And in People v. Henry , 518 N.Y.S.2d 44 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987), the court upheld a confession obtained after police confronted the defendant with fake polygraph test results indicating he had lied to police. Moreover, in State v. Whittington, 809 A. 2d 721 (Md. App. 2002), police placed an invisible powder on a pen they gave to the suspect so when they later conducted a fake gunpowder residue test, it appeared to her she still had gunpowder on her hand. The court found this deception did not violate due process.
Still other courts have sided with the Cayward decision and reversed convictions based upon confessions obtained after the police presented fabricated evidence to the defendant. In State v. Patton, 362 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div.) (2003), an officer, posing as an eyewitness, was “interviewed” on an audiotape that was later played to the defendant who, despite his early denials of involvement, confessed upon hearing the tape. Both the confession and the false tape were admitted at trial. The subsequent conviction was reversed on appeal.
If Things Weren't Complicated Enough
If courts not being able to agree to kill a rat in a bathtub didn't make life complicated enough, can lying as a regular part of the job affect officers? I've asked officers that question nation-wide. My favorite answer came from a Wisconsin officer, who replied, “Yeah, hopefully I've gotten better at it.” As to the ethical and legal use of investigative lies, hopefully officers do become more skilled. But do you know officers who have been affected in other ways by the lying they do? How? Here's what some experts say about the potential impact of police lying: 
We Must Ask
With all that is at stake for individual officers, departments, and the public in the use of investigative lies to apprehend dangerous criminals, with the courts not even agreeing what police conduct is lawful in this area, are we properly preparing officers to lie lawfully? Are we properly preparing them for the psychological slippery slope that lying as a regular part of the job can place them on? How many departments provide adequate, if any, training in this high stakes area of police work? How many departments or agencies have any guiding policies or procedures?
What We Can Do
First and foremost, we have to train officers in the ethical and lawful use of police deception. We have to train them on Supreme Court case law and the controlling cases and laws of their jurisdiction. This article barely scratches that surface. Despite the grim picture of courts disagreeing, there are basic agreements and parameters amongst courts within officers' jurisdictions that can provide guidance and these cases can form the basis of scenarios for training.
Next, we must provide officers scenario-based training in the use of such deception. These scenarios must:
• Develop officers' knowledge and mastery of the circumstances courts look at to determine whether police deception violates due process.
• Lead officers to devise lawful deceptions and to apply them non-coercively in various combined circumstances.
• Increasingly raise the stakes, make officers aware of the potentially corrosive effect of regularly lying, and give them specific strategies for protecting against such corrosive effect.
This training need is greatest for veteran officers, who are most likely to use deception in investigations and are most subject to its cumulative effect.
Third, the profession should address whether to develop policies and procedures for officers' use of deception. Policing has seen the need for such guidelines in the use of force and high-speed pursuits. The stakes for officers, departments and the public can be just as high in this arena. Such procedures might consider:
• Should investigative lies be used only if other means of gathering evidence have been unsuccessful or the officer can articulate that such means would be futile?
• Should officers have to obtain approval or a second opinion before using deception?
• Should the procedures be the same for deception used with a suspect as a witness?
• Should officers have to complete training before using deception?
• If taping of suspect interviews is not already required, should it be whenever deception is used?
If policies and procedures are adopted, they must be broad enough to provide officers with lawful flexibility and discretion in fighting crime but specific enough to ensure that if they are followed, officers can expect the full support of their departments. In a recent web cast on this topic, officers across the nation were asked,
If you were investigating a serious, high profile case and you made an ethically and legally tough decision to use an investigative lie that the media and public had a strong negative reaction to afterwards -- do you believe your department's leadership would support you?
Nearly two out of three – or 64% of respondents -- believed their departments would not support them. 3
Which leads to a final thing the profession must do – support officers in this complex arena. Oscar Wilde said, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” If an officer has followed procedures, or in their absence has made a tough but ethical decision, and the media, the public or a court later disagree on its legality, departments should support the officer. Remember, courts don't even agree on this stuff and they have attorneys and law clerks briefing it for them before they have to decide. We can acknowledge the court's or public's opinion, we can respect the disagreement -- and still support the officer's decision. That support must include training officers before they are confronted with these complex decisions and their high stakes consequences.
1 Laurie Magid, Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 1168, 1198-99 (2001).
2 Karl S. Johnstone, Superior Court Judge, Retired.
3 This webcast is archived on www.officer.com .
Described by Caliber Press as “ the indisputable master of enter~ train ~ment,” Val Van Brocklin is an internationally acclaimed speaker and noted author. She combines a dynamic presentation style with over 10 years experience as a prosecutor where her trial work received national media attention on ABC'S PRIMETIME LIVE , the Discovery Channel's Justice Files , in USA Today , The National Enquirer and REDBOOK. Visit her website: www.valvanbrocklin.com.◦
Thursday, January 7, 2010
An Article You Should Check Out: Behavioral identification can help stop terrorists, researcher says
Behavioral identification can help stop terrorists, researcher says
University at Buffalo behavioral scientist and security researcher Mark G. Frank, PhD and his work is the focus. Frank worked closely with Ekman for several decades...◦
When We Pinch Our Lower Lip With Our Fingers
Chairman Guido Westerwelle addresses the audience during the FDP Ephiphany conference on January 6, 2010 in Stuttgart, Germany. The Epiphany conference is the first party meeting of the FDP in this year to rework their general principles.
This is a pacifying gesture. Normally whenever we touch, lick with our tongue, or otherwise interact with our lips it is pacifying. This particular gesture is not all that unique, but what is interesting is how it pacifies us: It manipulates our lower lip into a suckling position which first provided us comfort when we were very, very young...◦
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden Photo Has Created a Storm of Problems for Political Bloggers and Body Language "Experts"
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden talk before the start of the Kennedy Center Honors at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., Dec. 6, 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
So last month someone from Instapundit posted the above picture and asked people to comment on Obama's body language. They weren't really body language experts and then it started to get political, people stating the writer was trying to make Obama look bad, etc.
An example of this is when this poster writes, "Glenn Reynolds finds a photo in the White House Flickr basket and publishes it to, er, point out how bad the White House's p.r. is, or how blind they are to perceptions of Obama or some such thing. I tried to puzzle this one out and can just about see how an elusive photo of a tired Obama reacting to something unknowable might make him look tired or arrogant or something Read the rest of the post.
You can click on the photo to see an enlarged picture.
Without getting into the political side, here is what I see:
Notice how he holds his head back slightly. this can mean a wide variety of things from arrogance (looking down his nose at Joe), to attempting to be as far away from Joe as possible (like when someone has really bad breath).
His arms folded generally signals a lack of openness, or a lack of wanting to perform some of his benchmark gestures like when he places a hand on another's shoulder, or briefly touches the forearm.
His lips are pursed, from this position if he does open them, even slightly, it would be a sign he wants to speak...
Eyes are not open widely, in fact they are more closed than normal, which is a sign he not fully engaged.
He could be just tired but I get the vibe, that Obama is dismissing what Joe is saying and he is unhappy with the conversation.◦
Last Day for Early Bird Pricing on Humintell's Evaluating Truthfulness Webinar
January 21, 2101 from 10am-Noon Pacific Standard Time
The ability to evaluate truthfulness and assess credibility is a crucial skill for many professionals whose jobs require interviews, interrogations, and information collection and reaction elicitation of others. Through this 2- hour webinar, participants will learn how to improve their skills in reading emotions and other nonverbal behaviors, improve their ability to spot clues to potential deception via nonverbal behaviors and learn which nonverbal behaviors have been scientifically proven to be associated with truthfulness and deception.
Early Bird Registration for Special Price ends today, January 7th.
Humintell's Evaluating Truthfulness Webinar◦
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Intimate Space and the Eye Contact Rule
LONDON, ENGLAND - JANUARY 04: (L-R) Shane Sutton and Dave Brailsford attend the Team Sky Launch at Millbank Tower on January 4, 2010 in London, England.
These two people are standing very close to each other by any standards of territory. When we are standing so close to someone else, and they are not someone we feel extremely comfortable with- like a spouse or a very close friend- the amount of eye contact with that person goes down.
We look elsewhere to avoid more eye contact. In normal conversation with someone about 2-4 feet away, normal eye contact involves looking at the eyes about 30% of the time, the remaining time is spent looking towards the general direction of the person. 60+ percent eye contact is a usual sign of either attraction or aggression.
It is important to note that levels of appropriate eye contact differ from culture to culture.◦
Posts
