Human Interaction with Other People - Essay Example

Nonverbal Communication In every human interaction with other people, there are elements of nonverbal communication that serve to help shape and direct the conversation. There are many different types of nonverbal communication that might occur in any given interaction. To discover just how prevalent and influential nonverbal communication might be, I made special observations of these elements of communication during a recent conversation I had with some friends of mine lately. It was an impromptu meeting between myself, a Hispanic elderly lawyer friend of mine, his second wife and a couple that worked for the political newspaper that operated out of the same building. We all met in the entry area of the building where both their offices were. The couple wrote on a freelance basis and only one article per month, so they weren’t usually very busy. The lawyer couple was involved not only in helping the newspaper to succeed but also in running two or three businesses of their own, including their law practice. Although I was included in the general conversation, I hung back somewhat from the group, intending to observe as much as I could about the various dynamics involved. All of these dynamics came into play in the kinesics, haptics, physical appearance and the influence of the environment I observed during this interaction. Kinesics refers to the specific movements of the body that take place as an individual interacts with someone else. This can mean their facial expressions, stance, shifts in weight, arm positioning or any number of movements. During this interaction, I could clearly see an entirely different conversation taking place among the four people I was watching as well as recognize in myself a purposeful hanging back from the conversation. The reporter’s wife, an arts writer, was politely interested in the conversation taking place. Her eyes remained focused on each speaker as well as flitted among the other listeners and the environment around us. Other indications that she was interested in the conversation was the way she tended to lean forward into the center of the group so she could attend better to what everyone was saying and the way she flicked a brief disapproving glance at the lawyer’s wife every now and then when the lawyer’s wife interjected something not related to the political conversation taking place. This language also gave the impression that she was intelligent, even though she didn’t add much to the conversation. When she did speak, though, with a calm, soft voice and languid drawl, everyone else immediately turned their attention to her. The lawyer’s wife was clearly used to being the most important woman in the room and wasn’t sure how to deal with this other woman. Her body language was jerky, seeming to dart in and out of the group, interjecting topics that were unrelated to the conversation as a means of shifting focus to something she wanted to talk about. Her facial muscles were tense and she seldom smiled. When she talked, she had a tendency to tilt her head backwards and adopt a lecturing tone of voice, giving the impression that she was talking down to the others. The men dominated the verbal conversation, but it was the women’s nonverbal conversation that fascinated me because of the high dynamics involved. Although the lawyer’s wife appeared to be the more dominant female, the reporter’s wife was actually more confident in her dominance and equality to the men. This mesmerizing interaction between the two women was carried out in the way in which they interacted within their environment, through their appearance and in their use of haptics, or touching as a means of communication. The bird-like physical movements of the lawyer’s wife were reinforced in her appearance. She had an unnaturally and brilliantly red head and wore jewel-colored clothing with glittery little bits sewn to it. This was contrasted with the reporter’s wife who wore naturally dark blonde hair and earth-toned non-descript clothing, seemingly valuing comfort far above style in her choice of fashion. Both women would easily be characterized as attractive, but they didn’t seem to belong to the same world. The glitzy clothing of the lawyer’s wife were streamlined, businesslike and designed to show off the woman’s attributes while presenting a sense of strength and power. The earthy clothes of the reporter’s wife seemed to be the opposite. They were clothes that one would wear on a weekend when there was little more to do than relax around the house and did little to bring attention to her figure. The lawyer’s wife’s hair was professionally styled and carefully groomed and the reporter’s wife’s hair was carelessly windblown, loose and looked to have been cut at home. It would naturally be assumed that the lawyer’s wife should have been immediately identified as the dominant figure of these two – easily wealthier, more powerful and with a greater degree of education. However, the reporter’s wife managed to retain a sense of dominance that I cannot seem to identify. Perhaps it was in her utter refusal to conform to expectations and in her complete comfort with where she was at any given moment. The lawyer’s wife, constantly darting in and out of the circle of people, seemed to only notice the other woman, taking almost no note that the men were discussing something of interest. This is perhaps another reason the reporter’s wife emerged as being dominant within the group. The reporter’s wife was well-aware of what the men were discussing, contributing a comment now and again and indicating to her husband which direction she wanted the conversation to take. At the same time, this woman was also aware of the mundane topics introduced by the lawyer’s wife, often dismissing them and occasionally commenting on them. She also seemed to be aware of me, hanging back away from the group, and, I am sure, remained aware that the group was talking in the center of a building where sound carried and work needed to be completed. It seems I intuitively understand that a true leader, the dominant one of the pack, is the one that remains aware of what is going on in order to bring the pack to order in case of emergency. Her proximity to the group easily included her within it. She even seemed to lean forward slightly in order to involve herself in the group dynamics more completely, yet she continued to keep one foot – literally and figuratively – firmly anchored within the greater environment in which we were talking. The men seemed to be aware of each other certainly, the reporter’s wife (as only a small movement from her could cause them to immediately cease talking and wait for her comment) and the lawyer’s wife only when she made herself felt. Without seeming to make any overt moves or instigating any real opposition, the reporter’s wife managed to regulate the entire interaction. This was aided not only by the elements discussed above, but also through her use of haptics. Whenever the conversation of the men began to grow loud with enthusiasm, the reporter’s wife would gently press a finger to her husband’s arm and give him a gentle look of her eyes to quiet him back down. The same touch combined with a different look in the eyes signaled him she had something to say and incidental touches throughout the conversation indicated approval, warning and a cue to leave. In contrast, the lawyer’s wife only seemed to touch her husband accidentally as she attempted to force her way into the conversation and her attempts to get her husband to leave were confused by her husband with unappreciated clinging. While her husband seemed annoyed and unaware of the cue, the reporter accurately assessed his wife’s touches, only becoming aware of the lawyer’s wife’s efforts after the cue and bringing the conversation to a close. By watching these two women, I learned a great deal about the dynamics of nonverbal conversation. Although the lawyer’s wife continued to engage in activities that would seem to assert her authority, these actions only served to make her appear subservient and fawning. The reporter’s wife, in comfortably allowing the conversation of the men to flow around her until she wanted to hear about something else, established the impression within all of the members of the group that she was in control. She did this not by asserting her authority, but by being confident that her authority was recognized. She successfully managed to encode various combinations in a way that her husband could correctly decode these discreet touches and facial expressions to take appropriate action, but she didn’t use these tools indiscriminately. In contrast, the lawyer’s wife immediately gave the impression of insecure nervousness with her frenetic activity. Her movements lacked meaning and effectiveness while her desperation easily won her the lowest rank of the group. Perhaps the greatest lesson I learned for future interactions is not to be too eager to assert my dominance by being the loudest member of the group. Sometimes it’s the quietest that retains the greatest ability to regulate. Read More