Hey, I'd like to you take part in a very interesting experiment. To start with, there are two incomplete sentences - (A) "All...are...!" and (B) "All...have...!". You can fill in the first blank places (...) with any plural nouns in both sentences. Also, you can fill the second blank places with an adjective (for A) and a verb (for B) with some additional plural nouns or adjectives. I'm damn sure that you might have something in your mind to fill the blank spaces e. g. "All dogs are biters!". Similarly, there're other fill-in-the-blanks-the-way-you-like statements such as "People are...", "People always..." or "Everybody is...".
Creating or making up such kind of statements is called as over-generalisation. It's a greatest mental shortcut of fabricating a broader assumption, without any specific CONTEXT. In other words, it's a cognitive distortion that excludes the underlying context or hidden complexity from an assumptions or a conclusion. Indeed, it needs time, energy, patience and the inputs given by others to fully understand or analyse the setting, history, situation, condition, relativity, specification, combination, dependency, correlation, proportion, circumstance or configuration behing something to happen or exist.
Over-generalising statements, opinions, claims and quotes surely do help in keeping a conversation light, casual and smooth. However, they can lead to a lot of serious issues if people believe in them as most people choose to do so. If you're an expert, a specialist or an experienced person in any area, field or domain; you can simply mislead people with your over-generalising statements, opinions and claims. They can and do misguide perception, thoughts, policies and/or decisions of the people who believe in your expertise.
Over-generalising statements, opinions, claims and quotes do exist in almost every area, field or domain. Unfortunately, some highly respected and responsible scientists too might have over-generalised some critical facts. I've watched a renowned Nobel laureate over-generalising the concentration of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, over the millions of years of Earth's history. He excluded the biospheric circumstances from his convinient equation. Isn't it totally disastrous or more specifically - unscientific?
In body language, over-generalising statements, opinions, claims and quotes attract the attention of the readers. Some of them are - "Basic emotional expressions are universal", "93% human communication is nonverbal", "People do lie...times a day" (You can fill the blank space with the number you've heard) etc. Recently, I came across an article in which it has been mentioned that a globally renowned body language expert publicly claimed, "There's no such thing as micro-expressions!". Did he mean FACIAL ones too?
It's only the context that gives the meaning to body language cues. In other words, the meaning of different body language cues can be accurately found or revealed only after understanding or analysing the situation or circumstance in which they have been observed, detected or picked. Body language cues can't be separated from the context. CONTEXT is the undisputed, uncontested and eternal ruler (or the real dictator) in body language. CONTEXT is the KING.
Along with the condition, situation or circumstance, physical features (or abnormalities if any), socio-economical status, geographical origin, profession/occupation, personality, character, ethnicity, education, history, culture, gender and age of the person giving body language cues can be considered as the context. However, the context can also be established at much broader and deeper level.
[#Special Note: The word 'universal' or 'universally' is often used to replace the word 'cross-cultural' or 'cross-culturally' in the statements made about human beings. However, I sincerely think that usage of the word is massively misleading or utterly uncontextual while considering the unfathomable vastness of the (observable) universe and the possibility of innumerable species of intelligent creatures (following cultures) living in the same.]
Creating or making up such kind of statements is called as over-generalisation. It's a greatest mental shortcut of fabricating a broader assumption, without any specific CONTEXT. In other words, it's a cognitive distortion that excludes the underlying context or hidden complexity from an assumptions or a conclusion. Indeed, it needs time, energy, patience and the inputs given by others to fully understand or analyse the setting, history, situation, condition, relativity, specification, combination, dependency, correlation, proportion, circumstance or configuration behing something to happen or exist.
 |
| CONTEXT: Most people avoid to talk about |
Over-generalising statements, opinions, claims and quotes surely do help in keeping a conversation light, casual and smooth. However, they can lead to a lot of serious issues if people believe in them as most people choose to do so. If you're an expert, a specialist or an experienced person in any area, field or domain; you can simply mislead people with your over-generalising statements, opinions and claims. They can and do misguide perception, thoughts, policies and/or decisions of the people who believe in your expertise.
Over-generalising statements, opinions, claims and quotes do exist in almost every area, field or domain. Unfortunately, some highly respected and responsible scientists too might have over-generalised some critical facts. I've watched a renowned Nobel laureate over-generalising the concentration of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, over the millions of years of Earth's history. He excluded the biospheric circumstances from his convinient equation. Isn't it totally disastrous or more specifically - unscientific?
In body language, over-generalising statements, opinions, claims and quotes attract the attention of the readers. Some of them are - "Basic emotional expressions are universal", "93% human communication is nonverbal", "People do lie...times a day" (You can fill the blank space with the number you've heard) etc. Recently, I came across an article in which it has been mentioned that a globally renowned body language expert publicly claimed, "There's no such thing as micro-expressions!". Did he mean FACIAL ones too?
It's only the context that gives the meaning to body language cues. In other words, the meaning of different body language cues can be accurately found or revealed only after understanding or analysing the situation or circumstance in which they have been observed, detected or picked. Body language cues can't be separated from the context. CONTEXT is the undisputed, uncontested and eternal ruler (or the real dictator) in body language. CONTEXT is the KING.
 |
| Understanding context: Putting different pieces together |
Along with the condition, situation or circumstance, physical features (or abnormalities if any), socio-economical status, geographical origin, profession/occupation, personality, character, ethnicity, education, history, culture, gender and age of the person giving body language cues can be considered as the context. However, the context can also be established at much broader and deeper level.
[#Special Note: The word 'universal' or 'universally' is often used to replace the word 'cross-cultural' or 'cross-culturally' in the statements made about human beings. However, I sincerely think that usage of the word is massively misleading or utterly uncontextual while considering the unfathomable vastness of the (observable) universe and the possibility of innumerable species of intelligent creatures (following cultures) living in the same.]
Yes you are absolutely right. Context is highly important in fact the term 'body language' can itself be seen as a populist overgeneralisation.
ReplyDelete‘Body language” is a popular general term used by those who engage in pop psychology and science lite activity to describe what are actually complex human interactions.
Understanding the subtleties of nonverbal behaviour requires recognising its role in the broader context of behaviour, including cultural, situational, and individual differences.
This understanding is essential for accurately interpreting interactions and avoiding miscommunications, as these nuances significantly influence interpretation.
Bob Pointer
Behavioural Intelligence Academy