It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Eye contact.

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: roth1

Not to worry! Most people are so engrossed in their smart phones they'll hardly even notice an actual person talking to them anymore. 'Eye contact' will soon refer to the prescription lenses exclusively.




posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: roth1
When I talk about something i care about the answer I do not care to see a wobble head. Or to see a crude attempt at liftoff to fly as they flail their arms around. If it were just facial expressions and eyes you may have a point.


Well that is just the issue. Facial expression alone is very useful for proper communication, and to ignore it means that your ability to empathise with the people with whom you converse, to know what they think of a situation or a thing, which (whether you happen to accept it or not) is necessary for things like cohesion in social groups be they work colleagues, friends, family, among others, will suffer immensely.



Are you telling me you could not understand what some one was saying if you were not looking at them? Or misunderstand the radio? I am just saying i am discriminated against because I do not care to watch people talk. If i listen to them talk and respond with a reasonable response to a question or statement, I deserve the same.


I could comprehend the words they were saying, and indeed, this would allow me to listen to the radio without misunderstanding what the DJ was saying. However, there is a difference between the sort of communication involved in radio communications, and the sort of face to face interaction that is the stuff of every day life. The words that people use are not meant, in all cases, to be held alone as a true accounting of what they mean, and what they feel about it. You may not wish to engage on an emotional level with your life, and the people in it, but I am afraid that option is not available to you, unless you have some sort of psychological impairment of your ability to do so. Otherwise all you would achieve is to give people the impression, and not without good reason, that you were being needlessly impolite.



be some thing. I see people look at me, take their hands off the wheel, when they drive and talk. Almost get in an accident not paying attention to the road. People stop working when some one asks them a question. Just answer and keep working. No need to look away from your work.


It depends on what the work is. Driving a car is one of those times where a person is forced to use only their ears and mouth to communicate, if they wish to remain in control of the vehicle, but you must understand that the requirements of effective communication change dependant on situation, although the base state of communication must be as broad as possible so that understanding and cohesion in society can operate. So, when one is doing something which requires constant visual attention, like driving, the normal needs of communication are overridden for the sake of safety. At other times however, when ones life and limb are not in the balance, there is no need for such rudeness and offhandedness.



And start with hand signals i cannot understand. How is this a good thing? I is counter productive and that cannot be denied. I see it as a flaw on others. These hand signals are random at best anyway. Has anyone described an object to you before. I bet you could not picture what they were trying to describe without the words. But i bet you could close your eyes and listen and understand. If they knew how to define it.

And there is where your attitude toward communication falls apart. Proper communication is multi faceted, involving verbal, tonal, and body language elements, because it is more effective, and the reason for that, is when someone lacks the vocabulary to accurately describe a thing, an event, or a situation, non verbal cues cover the holes in their vocabulary. For example, trying to get a person who does not do a lot of physical work, to describe the difference between a flat angle, and an angle bracket, usually comes down to hand signals, which prove very effective. I have had customers in my shop from overseas, who do not yet speak enough English to converse in any depth about products they require, but I have been able to serve them because I was able to resort to hand signals, and to understand from their signals, what it was they needed.



Like i said i can listen to a radio fine an get something and i miss nothing. I do not care how excited, happy or angry ect..They are about it. I just care about the facts. .a reply to: TrueBrit



That is because the radio, and the sort of information being thrown out by it, is different than a conversation. The radio does not talk to you, it talks AT you. It is, ordinarily speaking, a one way flow of data. A conversation however, involves actual sharing of information, emotion, expression, not any one of these, but all of them. It is not IMPOSSIBLE without the more subtle elements, but it is an awful lot harder, unless of course one happens to be autistic as previously mentioned, or suffering some other psychological or neurological malfunction. Put simply, we SHOULD care about how people feel about things, and that is why we communicate in a multi faceted way, rather than along a single audiological channel.
edit on 27-10-2014 by TrueBrit because: Grammatical error removal.

edit on 27-10-2014 by TrueBrit because: Further grammatical error removal.

edit on 27-10-2014 by TrueBrit because: More of the same.

edit on 27-10-2014 by TrueBrit because: Finally! Thank you for your forbearance!



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Even when someone isn't getting those non-verbal cues, there are still ways to understand how somebody feels about something. It just takes a lot more effort. I actually have to put myself in their exact shoes using what I know of their knowledge and the context of the situation and ask myself "how would I feel?". If that's not sufficient, I just outright ask "are you okay?" which always gets the person talking telling me directly how they are feeling. The funny part is that, regardless of whether they are upset or not, just asking that tends to make them feel good in that I cared enough to ask. I'm known as both being terribly unexpressive and being very empathetic. It's all smoke and mirrors, baby! The point being, even an autistic can do this. It's just as you say--a whole hell of a lot harder.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

To be honest, the effort being made at all is usually what counts, you are spot on there. My issue here is that roth1 honestly seems not to give a hoot, not even on the most shallow of levels. That is just not acceptable, even for someone who has one or another sort of Autism. From what I understand of Autism, those who suffer from it have varying degrees of difficulty communicating their emotions, or accepting emotional input from others. Some shy away from it, but even those who have such a disharmonious relationship with their own emotional selves, that seeing peoples faces can make them weep from the over stimulation, the starkness of their expressions, even those individuals cannot honestly say in their hearts, that they do not care.

Not caring at all what the feelings of others are on a certain matter is not a hallmark of autism of any kind with which I am familiar. It is more like sociopathy than anything else!



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I think that that may be a difference in personality. People weight emotional aspects on different levels. For some, every decision is made with the heart. For another, the heart can lead a person to folly or stagnation. I think it's a conflict of personality types to be honest. Whereas for my own personal circumstances, both as an autistic and an INTJ, I defer to my reason over my heart the majority of the time. Nothing is more frustrating to me to see the same person running headlong into misery simply because their heart leads them there. In that sense, I can seem to be pretty merciless when a person repeats the same emotion-driven error over and over again and comes crying to me about it. At the same time, I will be reduced to rubble by the viewing of anguish, even if it is a simply a photo.

I think the concept of the sociopath gets overused to basically describe anyone who values logic over feeling. Does roth1 really not care?


I see people look at me, take their hands off the wheel, when they drive and talk. Almost get in an accident not paying attention to the road.


If he's seen people take their hands off the wheel as they're talking and nearly getting into an accident doing it, doesn't his remarking on it signal a concern for the welfare of others? If being a sociopath is the issue, would a sociopath care if the person got in an accident? No. Would a sociopath care if the electrician working at his brother's house was actually doing his job to the fullest? No. Would a sociopath even listen to another and provide a reasonable response if they didn't care? No. Having a preference for logic and fact over emotions is not equitable to being a sociopath. If the value of a preference towards thinking over feeling was used to measure the number of sociopaths in this world, we'd be overrun by them and that's really what it is. It's a variance in personality.

www.myersbriggs.org...

Insert statistics junky website: www.statisticbrain.com...

A little over 40% of the population values thinking (logic/fact) over feelings (heart matters). If having a preference for fact and a disdain for emotion was a measure of sociopaths in society, then 40% of the population would be sociopaths in your book.

roth1 is NOT a sociopath. If you go down the DSM-IV for the traits of a sociopath, you'll see that he doesn't fulfill a single diagnostic trait. Valuing fact over emotions and holding disdain for the penchant to let feelings override thinking does NOT make one a sociopath. I've run into an actual diagnosed sociopath. The guy was an incredibly dangerous monster with one hell of a criminal record due to his penchant for violent aggression and impulsiveness.

www.md-health.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: roth1

I think its a cultural thing. I have been amazed at the lack of eye contact in DC for example. My eldest sister studied communications in DC. She would always say that it was unheard of to make eye contact with people there for too long. One story that stuck out was when she got her first job fresh out of school in DC, there was a long sterile hallway from one group of offices and the common area. People would stare at the blank walls in this narrow hallway so as to avoid the temptation of eye contact as you passed them. SO imagine a guy in a spotless business suit turning his head while he passed you to pretend to stare at the wall. LOL

Then there are social subgroups that really need that eye contact as part of a social contract. I know if you go to a military base or the community surrounding it that people will look for eye contact. Not giving that simple social interaction almost makes you a suspected enemy. Same with police. If you notice people who avoid eye contact are almost always given an extra once over.

If you are dealing with business relations you need that eye contact. Not doing so almost certainly will cost you the sale. Trust in your product or service starts with basic body language.

Anyone who has dealt with Caribbean or south American religious culture can tell you how too much eye contact can be offensive. If you stare at a child for too long (even if saying "what a cute baby" or whatever) , the mothers will get upset that you gave them "bad of the eye". That goes for staring at anyone in those cultures in general as well. Envy is seen as the driving force for this perceived visually transferred physical harm. Its not that they think you are a pedophile or a stalker, just that you are imposing a bad vibe on them.

If you want look into experiments where staring at people prompts a response. Try just sitting in a cafe or something with a friend and staring at people across the street. The key here is that they dont know you are looking at them but will turn or look for someone if 2 or more people are watching them. I dont know if its a real phenomena but there is a sort of detectable power to the eyes focusing on someone. The feeling of "being watched", or having a powerful stare....ect-

Have a good one.

edit on 10 27 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Yep. When I lived with the Navajo, I'd sometimes run into Navajo that would refuse to look me in the eye at all. Oddly enough, I, of all people, found that terribly disconcerting because it was so counter to what I was used to. The explanation that I received was that the individual doing everything possible to avoid meeting my eyes was not attempting to insult me but instead was showing me respect as being representative of their conqueror. That didn't make me feel better in the slightest about it as I'd never want anyone to feel that way but it was definitely an eye contact related cultural difference.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I agree. Suggesting that roth1's behaviour is sociopathic was ill advised, and I apologise to roth1, and indeed to everyone here, for that total buffoonery on my part.

However, I do not believe that a person who values reason and logic, would choose to ignore an entire segment of human communication, and therefore all appeals from roth1 on that subject appear to be little more than an attempt to justify an absolutely unjustifiable position with regard to the topic.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Good on you, TrueBrit! This is one of the reasons why I totally respect you on these boards.

Being kind of in the middle on this, I can see both points of view. I can totally understand roth1's position in that I don't need to do all those little extra things to listen to a person. If anything, having to force myself to do the eye contact thing and other things to signify that I'm paying attention are more of a distraction from what they are saying than an aid. Instead of listening and thinking about what is being said, I'm thinking about what non-verbal cues I'm supposed to be doing along with listening and thinking about what the person is saying. That kind of congests things a bit in my noggin and stuff might go in one ear and out the other if I'm really floundering on what to do in the non-verbal department because of that dread uncertainty/ambiguity. At the same time, I get that many prefer some sort of non-verbal acknowledgment/feedback so I try--even if it is to the overall deficit of the conversation.

Everybody has different values based on their personalities. roth1 values efficiency and expediency. The electrician working at his brother's house could've gotten the job done faster if he'd continued to work. Isn't that true? What if the electrician was billing hourly--wasn't he wasting the money of roth1's brother when he stopped working to turn and converse? Does that change that scenario? I know that I'd prefer an electrician to keep on working even if we're chatting away because then, they get the job done faster and we can both move on with our days. That's not an unjustifiable position. If we were to spend every random encounter with every person on the planet in such a way that we stopping doing what we were doing to obey the social norm of all those non-verbal cues, how would anybody get anything done?

When your mom was folding laundry or cooking dinner, did she stop what she was doing to look at you if the both of you were talking? Maybe if you were in trouble but odds are, she was trying to get a chore done or avoiding a burnt dinner and talking with you in the midst of doing her thing. We are capable of communicating without the non-verbals. People do it all the time and that's roth's beef from what I can tell. He's not necessarily ranting about being at a social function and non-verbals there. Everything he's complained about, iirc, has been when person X is supposed to be doing thing A and stopped to do non-verbals.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I think we are at cross purposes, where the importance of body language is concerned. One does not consciously perform bodily acts as communicative gestures, unless some sort of rudimentary sign language is required, for instance, when the room is noisy, or when one person is on the telephone. If I hold up my hands in a T shape, this indicates that I am about to make a cup of tea, and implies a query as to whether or not the receipient of that message would also like to partake.

However, the body language which means the most to people, is not the body language which is conscious (although that sort is bloody handy at times). I am talking about the set of a persons jaw, the way they hold their shoulders, what they are doing with their hands, these things are as informative as tone of voice and choice of words, or for that matter volume! For instance, words can say one thing, while the face can mean another. It is frequently important to know these cues.

One does not try to consciously alter ones own body language to suit a situation, but learning to read the body language of others, and absorb the most data per second during that communication, is necessary if efficency and effectiveness is what you are aiming for. If logic TRULY dictates a persons actions, they do not ignore data when it is available to them!
edit on 27-10-2014 by TrueBrit because: Spelling correction.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

One may consciously alter one's own body language when one is autistic. I'm fortunate in a way that my grandfather provided me with one book (the SAME book) for my nightstand at his home on my summer stays. A book on reading non-verbal cues and other methods of profiling. I think he was trying to tell me something there. Leaning in, leaning out, crossed arms, crossed legs, which way is the toe pointing, shoulder, tilt of the head, angle of the torso, and much, much more. For all my facial recognition deficits and thanks to grandpa, I'm a pretty darn good reader of people and have even been accused of being "psychic" as a result (which I find both frustrating and humorous). I can unnerve the crap out of people if I want. I didn't have the innate tools. I just had to be taught. My general position when I'm listening to another without any conscious alteration is to sit, continuing to do what I was doing, with zero eye contact. If I want to actually give a clear message, I modify all of those things to indicate that message as I know others can subconsciously pick it up. Overall though? I don't need that eye contact. I do it to be nice.

What roth1 is discussing particularly is just that though--eye contact with a toss in about hand gesturing but not everybody gestures with their hands. Except for maybe now due to my current sight issues, I typically can see very well in my peripheral view. Just because I'm not looking into a person's eyes or at their face, doesn't mean that I'm not observing them and measuring. Mine is just artificial, indirect and avoids that all too confusing face.

If even an autistic can register on the periphery what someone is doing with body cues, why can't roth1?



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I hate catching a bus or train and sitting in a seat facing other seats, and being 'forced' to stare into the faces of the people seated opposite.

What I find invariably is that I am constantly being stared at by this row of mugs, who show no discomfort in the situation.

I know now why people read newspapers on trains.

It gives your eyes somewhere to look other than the ground.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: roth1

Some have eye contact issues due to social anxiety. Is not to say that is everyone's issue or other conditions, if they have trouble with eye contact. Personally I believe that the eyes, not merely just being windows to the soul, but can help to add further connections between people warranted or not, to say you may not be aware of an underlying connection. Such as for example, between some people, there are hormones(pheromones) at play. Also, If one is precognitive-one may have to believe in it anyway- they can also pick up on things. Can understand where you're coming from with the flailing hands and such, while I believe in expression while talking especially in media, sometimes it can go to far-stop moving your hands!

edit on 27-10-2014 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I personally have a hard time respecting someone that can't/won't look me in the eye when I am speaking to them. I guess I am the opposite of most people posting.



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I hate catching a bus or train and sitting in a seat facing other seats, and being 'forced' to stare into the faces of the people seated opposite.

What I find invariably is that I am constantly being stared at by this row of mugs, who show no discomfort in the situation.

I know now why people read newspapers on trains.

It gives your eyes somewhere to look other than the ground.


lol
I have nodded of many times either on the train or bus in the philosopher pose rather than make eye contact with a bunch of muppets



posted on Oct, 29 2014 @ 11:58 PM
link   
For the longest time I have had trouble with eye contact, since I was shy in my early years. I was ok with family or people I got used to being around, but other than that all bets were off. So it could get awkward for me if I made eye contact, like staring or doing it wrong. Some people would say, why are you looking at me like that? I'm like I'm not trying to do it on purpose! But at least that was then, not now.

There was a revelation given to me after I meditated for a long time once. I seen into the art of social mimicry. It went to the extreme to where it looked as though two people were hooked up in sync as they were mimicking each other perfectly, as if part of a choreographed routine. Every time I tried to join in with them, another person would "break" my attempt or the group would get anxious somehow. There was synchronicity everywhere it seemed. Good thing this type of insight went away on its own, it was just an unforeseen effect of the meditation I didn't know about.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: TrueBrit


If even an autistic can register on the periphery what someone is doing with body cues, why can't roth1?


Indeed, and the answer to that question, from what I have read here, appears to be more to do with roth1's attitude than any underlying condition that the member might have.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Those that insist on eye contact in order to communicate properly must have a heluva time talking with one who is blind.

Just an observation.



posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit

originally posted by: WhiteAlice
a reply to: TrueBrit


If even an autistic can register on the periphery what someone is doing with body cues, why can't roth1?


Indeed, and the answer to that question, from what I have read here, appears to be more to do with roth1's attitude than any underlying condition that the member might have.


However, that is just a difference in personality type, I think. We're not all the same, TrueBrit, and roth1's personality is one that exists without it being a mental disorder. I hazard that the point of conflict that you're having with roth1 is likely to due to extreme personality differences. ISFP, ESFP, INFP or ENFP. Probably one of those.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 12:08 AM
link   
I have a tendency to look people in the eye too long. I read body language, and watch the emotional expressions in the eyes, and all that is a pretty large percentage of what I pick up altogether from the person.
I also get very uncomfortable with people who won't do eye contact- it makes me think they have some bad intents they are hiding.... or if they are shy, I am afraid they will not read my eyes and body language, so won't get the whole communication of who I am and what I feel as I speak.

It took me a long time to figure out that holding eye contact too long can be very problematic. People start to feel vulnerable, which leads to them thinking that it is either an attempt at seduction, or an aggressive challenge.
This can lead to a lot of confusion and frustration on both our parts.

I make effort to limit the time of eye contact I make, going back and forth between contact, and then looking away to let them know I am digesting what they said.

But I still feel better with people who are able to keep up eye contact, and also remain very "intellectually" focused.
I know some people become less able to listen to the words carefully while they are following the emotional expression of the body, and some can be meticulous in the verbal communication but completely "deaf" to the emotional undercurrents, but if someone is able to fully deal with both at the same time, I feel it is a more honest exchange.

To the OP- I didn't follow the entire thread, but it just sounds like you are someone who trusts your conscious intellect and reasoning much more than your emotional side, and choose to ignore it- in yourself and others.

I don't know what lurks in your emotional depths, so I cannot tell you if you are correct in your distrust or not.
I would only hope you can open your mind to the possibility that some others might be using their emotions and body as an equal partner with their mind, with totally efficiency and safety. Emotions don't necessarily flood out the rational mind.




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join