Intuitive Scientists in the Social Environment - Essay Example

Intuitive Scientists in the Social Environment Information overload is a common enough term in today’s modern world. With ideas bombarding us from every direction throughout our waking lives, it is amazing that we are able to make any sense of the chaos. This is only compounded when we take into account the various tiny details of the world around us, other people and our need to work with or against them, that must be understood in order to function effectively. With all of this input, it is absolutely necessary that we find ways of condensing this information into more manageable chunks. Sociologists have been exploring the various tools we have at our disposal to interpret the world around us, whether it is as simple-seeming as a small farmstead in 1250 AD or as complicated as the ultra-globalized world of high speed internet and instant messaging in the present day. Studying this issue, social scientists have suggested that people act as ‘intuitive scientists’ when in a social environment (Heider & Simmel, 1944). The tools in their arsenal include attributions and various forms of nonverbal communications, all shaped and contextualized by the way in which the various individuals in the group interact with each other. Many of the clues we use to help us interpret the world around us is based upon our understandings of motion and relational movement. This is what Kelley (1967) referred to as attributions. Attributions are basically the human need to offer an explanation for events. External attributions explain the reasons for things based upon external factors, such as gravity caused the soda can to fall from my hand onto my foot. Internal attributions explain motivations as individual internal reactions, such as dropping the soda can in order to injure the foot so that I don’t have to march today in the hot sun. We understand the world based upon our understandings of these motivations, whether it is the kinetic energy of the door opening when the man pushes on it or the motivation of the man’s desire to get into a dry room. These understandings are somewhat skewed based upon our perceptual plane. For example, our ability to accurately interpret our position within a particular social environment can be shaped by self-serving bias. Self-serving bias is the tendency for people to claim their successes and ignore or downplay their failures, often with the effect that they become less able to adapt to different situations and social dynamics. In addition, it is a natural human tendency to phrase any ambiguous situation to their own benefit, making them seem good, heroic or otherwise positive to the rest of the group. Assessments are also subject to fundamental attribution error. This occurs when people over-emphasize another person’s actions as being based on the kind of person they are rather than on any external forces that might have contributed to a particular action. Both of these concepts are important to attribution theory in that self-serving bias will often lead to the actor-observer effect in which personal actions are explained in terms of external factors rather than internal personality traits, reversing the fundamental attribution error applied to others. In other words, if I do something disgraceful, such as burp in church, this behavior is explained by the two cans of soda I gulped down just before services started. If Tim (as an external other) burps in church, though, I might explain it in terms of personality traits, such as his slovenliness, lack of respect or impiety. A great deal of how we attribute particular characteristics on others remains rooted in nonverbal communication cues that are relatively commonly understood within a general culture. For example, Julius Fast illustrated just how a superior in an office complex, not wearing any styles or symbols of rank, was able to convey a sense of superiority over his co-workers in his book Body Language (1970). According to Fast, the study utilized silent films depicting two actors, one playing the part of a visitor and the other playing the part of a company executive shown to audiences who were then asked questions regarding how they ‘read’ the scene. Several patterns emerged from the answers provided. According to the researchers, the visitor was seen to have least status when he stopped just inside the door and talked to the executive from across the room and most status when he walked right up to the desk before speaking. “Another factor that governed status in the eyes of the observers was the time between knocking and entering, and for the seated executive, the time between hearing the knock and answering. The quicker the visitor entered the room the more status he had. The longer the executive took to answer, the more status he had” (Fast, 1970, p. 48). These factors boil down to a question of who controls the territory with the speed and depth of penetration indicating the personal status and position of both parties. In addition, Fast discusses the importance of positioning in establishing status. As a gestural move, the leader might purposefully place himself at a lower level than his subordinates to help them feel more confident and dominant or suggest a more comfortable setting in which to discuss issues so as to encourage less formal conversation. Professor Jurgen Streeck at the University of Texas at Austin indicates the body is fundamental to our communication process, especially the use of our hands to help denote meaning (Griffith, 2003). However, this is not based on specific interpretations of clearly defined motions, such as hand up, palm forward means ‘stop’. Even when the specific gestures are not given a hard and fast definition applicable across cultures, body movement remains important. As proof that our bodies are integral to our ability to speak, Streeck videotaped several individuals in various settings and uses some of these videotapes as examples of how language is inextricably linked with gesture. Discussing a particular mechanic filmed, Streeck said “He thinks with his body. So when you see him on the phone pushing a car, it’s because pushing a car to him is not an abstract concept. It’s a body reaction. It doesn’t matter if he thinks on the phone or in the presence of others. Our gestures are a background phenomenon” (Griffith, 2003). While there are several gestures that have become widely accepted as being power movements, Streeck’s research emphasizes the individual nature of the gestures used. “It’s not possible to point to a particularly American way of gesturing or even a Texan or female or ethnic way of gesturing. … [Gestures] are your own personal embodied identity, gathered from your own experience. … And they may change over time” (Griffith, 2003). There are actually several schools of thought regarding the various ways in which people work as ‘intuitive scientists’ within a given social setting which are based on various combinations of nonverbal communication, proximity and motion within a given environment. Charles Duke points out the different viewpoints held by psychologists and anthropologists regarding these roles in “Nonverbal Behavior and the Communication Process” (1974). “Members of the psychological school view nonverbal communication as simply the expression of emotions, but those individuals in the communicational school – mainly anthropologists and ethologists – are concerned with behaviors of posture, touch and movement as they relate to social processes like group cohesion and regulation” (Duke, 1974). In these studies, though, the context of the gestural meanings must always be taken into context with the culture of the individual displaying them as well as the context in which they are made for accurate interpretation. While it is clear that people do work as intuitive scientists, attempting to discern and accurately assess the various clues they are provided in a social setting, the specific dynamics of how this process works remains unclear. Works Cited Duke, Charles R. “Nonverbal Behavior and the Communication Process.” College Composition and Communication. Vol. 25, N. 5, December 1974, pp. 397-404. Fast, Julius. Body Language. New York: M. Evans and Company, 1970, pp. 48-51. Griffith, Vive. “Manual Dexterity.” University of Texas at Austin Journal. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2003. March 10, 2008 Heider, Fritz & Marianne Simmel. “An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior.” The American Journal of Psychology. Vol. 57. N. 2, (April 1944): 243-259. Kelley, H.H. “Attribution Theory in Social Psychology.” in Levine (ed) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Vol 15. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. Read More