Hi, Keith, Sorry for the delay in getting back: things have been busy.
Many thanks for the report on Perle's body language. Very interesting. Most people don't notice things as precisely or acutely, so appreciate the info and the effort you put into reporting them. Did you notice anything about eye movements, by any chance, and if so, can you associated a pattern of eye movements with a pattern of subject matter being discussed? I would be very interested in any other observations that you can recall: muscle tone changes, skin color changes, head tilts, depth and pace of breathing, tone, volume, timbre of the voice, unusual word choice, etc. The two instances of what I would call incongruencies that you report may or may not be significant; the incongruence can be genuine, but the substantive significance of an incongruence must be is unclear until the subject's patterns are better known. I don't think that any of this (or intelligence either, though I am less knowledgeable about that) is genetic, or at least if it is in any degree, the reliability of the association would be much too low and low-resolution to be useful in understanding or reading an individual. The kinds of patterns that I am looking for seem to cut across cultures and ethnicities, with vastly more variation among members of a group than between groups. Over the years I have come to discount generalizations about groups, and to pay attention to individuals to understand (those) individuals. Of course, that increases the cognitive and research burden immensely. Did you ever see the book, Body Language? It tried to suggest, for example, that some postures meant certain things about people, universally. Many people bought into the notion both because it suggested ways of understanding people and because it was easy. But, instead, it was misleading. We can now model the cognitive processes in individuals, but it remains a person-by-person undertaking, given the levels of precision we need. Again, many thanks, and I hope you might be able to add more, along the lines I ask, above. Cheers, Lawry > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Mon, March 17, 2003 3:41 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Perle's body language, etc (was: It's the > testosterone) > > > Hi Lawry, > > At 15:55 16/03/03 -0500, you wrote: > >Keith -- I missed the debate you refer to. Can you comment on how Perle > >handled himself? Energy and body language? > > > >Thanks, > >L > > Ah! Interesting question! Since he's emerged from the mist, I've been > thinking a great deal about Perle recently. David Dimbleby's TV programmes > in the last two/three weeks concerning Iraq have exhibited some of the > highest level debate that you're likely to find on TV. On two occasions on > ITV (60 and 90 minute programmes) and one on BBC (60 minute programme), > Perle has been the main protagonist speaking (long-distance video) from > America while the expert platform interlocutors (except for Dimbleby > himself) have been different at this end in each programme. I might also > say that a great deal of care must have gone into the selection of the > studio audiences. As far as I could judge, the most recent one fairly > represented the 60/40 (No/Yes) split in England. There were also several > brilliant expert speakers seated on the front row of the audience. Perle > was equal to any of them, audience or platform, except on a couple of > occasions (more later). > > (Incidentally, let me illustrate my comment from yesterday about the > "testosterone effect". A week ago, the opposition to Blair's support for > Bush was at around 65% in this country. A YouGov (Internet-based) > poll from > couple of days ago gave a 60/40 split. During yesterday's Dimbleby > programme, a phone-in vote gave a 55/45 split. I think if a poll > were taken > later on today or tomorrow morning [assuming that Bush declares > war then] I > would guess that a poll would show a 50/50 or even a 45/55 split in favour > of war. This rapidly shifting opinion of about 20% is due, to my mind, to > the credulous portion of the male population who are now being > carried away > by the excitement of events. However, I think this trend will reverse > itself when women start expressing themselves more forcefully in > the coming > weeks if there are large/gruesome fatalities among the Iraqi civilians.) > > (And now may I diverge just one more time before I discuss Perle in > particular? Here's a little bit about the neuropsychology of body > language. > Most people are now aware that an individual being questioned will give > away his state of stress by involuntary movements. For example, TV > camerapeople have long ago cottoned onto this by giving shots of > interlocutors' bobbing foot movements when individuals are lying -- or the > darting hand scratching the back of the head, or ears, or nose. > What is not > widely known, though, is that the motor strip of the brain which transmits > muscle movement commands [both voluntary and involuntary] is far > from being > proportionate to the layout of the body. In short, there are > relatively few > nerves running to and from most of the body -- feet, back, legs, arms, etc > -- but a very large number from the face (particularly in and around the > mouth) and hands (particularly fingertips). In terms of numbers of brain > cells involved, the nerve control (or lack of control under stress) of the > mouth and fingers comprise 45% of all body movements. Thus, if you want to > relax, it is stupid and time-consuming to go through all the systematic > procedures that physiotherapists tell you to do [usually starting with > one's toes -- which have hardly any nerve endings!]. You can short-circuit > the whole tedious business by allowing one's mouth, lips and tongue to > relax [when your mouth will moisten slightly] and one's fingers and > fingertips. You can achieve mental relaxation in two or three > seconds flat. > Conversely, get those two areas under control and you're in > charge, and not > the interlocutor. Believe me, Perle knows this well!) > > Perle faces the camera directly with his elbows on a suitable > level of desk > or table, his forearms flat and one palm resting upon the other. You can > see nothing else. His hands never move. His face is almost immobile. His > mouth is relaxed, almost smiling when he's not talking. He is in perfect > control. The other interesting feature of Perle under questioning is that > he always delays his replies. There's a perceptible delay of about two or > three seconds before replying to any question, tricky or otherwise (after > all, how does one know whether a simple question might not be tricky until > it's examined carefully!). This mode of response is very rare among > intellectuals (and is not usually necessary) because they usually fire-off > replies quicker than the average person ('cos their brains are faster) but > this can get them into trouble quite often. (The ex-UK-UN ambassador I > mentioned yesterday had also acquired this habit of delayed responses.) > This may seem a trivial piece of behaviour but it's extremely important > because a delay dampens down one's immediate emotional reaction and allows > sufficient time for rationalisation. > > So there you are! I have never seen anyone on TV who's under such control. > Perle seems perfectly relaxed. He smiles fairly frequently -- butter > wouldn't melt in his mouth. His voice is always well modulated. I saw only > two brief instances where Dimbleby on one occasion and the > ex-ambassador on > another seemed to break through Perle's facial control -- revealing > ultra-rapid flashes of anxiety which soon passed into blandness. > > The only way I thought I could something of the real Perle and what his > deeper underlying agenda might be was when he dealt with two other matters > which were thrown at him quite aggressively -- oil and Israel. > Very briefly > (after the usual delay!) he cheerfully said that "Iraq's resources" (he > didn't use the oil word!) would, "of course, come under the control of a > new Iraqi government" (friendly to the US one assumes!), and "of course", > the matter of a Palestinian State would have to be considered soon. He > moved onto the main theme very quickly after giving both of these > responses. I thought that these glissades were cleverly done and extremely > significant. > > I am, as you know, prejudiced on the oil issue, because I have > thought that > this has been the main motivation for the new war against Saddam almost > from the beginning. However, I have tended to pooh-pooh the idea > that there > might be an American-Jewish conspiracy involved -- which some are > maintaining. After all, there are as many Jewish-American intellectuals > who speak out against the war (if not more) as in favour. However, in the > way Perle dealt with the Israeli question on the last Dimbleby > programme, I > detected more than a whiff that a Jewish motivation is also involved among > the group that is manipulating Bush -- Perle himself, of course, but also > Wolfovitch and Rumsfeld. There's also a speech-writer called > Feith who went > with Bush to the Azores and seems very influential -- much more than Colin > Powell. I don't know whether he has Ashkenazi genes, but I wouldn't be > surprised. > > I don't believe for one moment that there is a well-defined > Jewish-American > conspiracy, but Ashkenazi genes must feature very strongly in any American > administration simply because their IQ is so much higher than the average > European/American white and a million or two of them came from Poland and > central Russia a century ago. After all, 50% of those entering Harvard > University (to choose one university) on the basis of SATS tests are > Jewish-Americans and East Asian-Americans -- 5% of the American > population. > (Non-Jewish-American whites, comprising 75% of the population, > get only 25% > of Harvard slots.) > > I seem to remember from somewhere that Bush Junior's SATS result was about > 660. I would think that Perle's score was probably double that. > I'd love to > know. The concept of the IQ of individuals, while useful for job selection > in many cases, is useless in the case of those of the highest grade of > intelligence because they are at, or above, the IQ of those who concoct IQ > tests. Suffice it to say that it is my opinion, for what it is worth, that > Perle's intelligence (and control of body language!) is of the > very highest > grade and it would be a formidable intellectual exercise to > debate with him > for any length of time. > > Keith Hudson > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------- > ------------ > > Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com > 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England > Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ________________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
