Guest guest Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 I am fascinated by this exchange between and Tim. Mostly because I am, in a word: lost. LOL I went to the website link Tim offered regarding Albert Mehrabian. It says that there are three elements to face to face communication: - words - tone of voice - body language Is this the dead granny being parroted, meaning Albert Mehrabian's studies that resulted in this 7% 38% 55% rule are a bad thing, a good thing and/or a dangerous thing. Or are both of agreeing with these studies. When I read the web page, the conclusions presented seemed absolutely like everything I've ever known in this regard. So Mehrabian makes perfect sense to me. I was also aware that some or many of these conclusions would probably not apply to AS. Which, to me, just means they aren't applicable to AS. Just as a big box of chocolates wouldn't apply to a diabetic, but that wouldn't mean the big box is dangerous to non-diabetics. Could someone explain to me if this guys work is bad, or good or what? I'm not sure how it is viewed here by reading the posts on it so far. Regards, Anita ... a little lost trying to figure out of this is important stuff. > > Tim, > > > > I love writing back to you- it keeps me completely honest and > > factual, and makes me dot my i's and cross my t's. I was only > > referring to discussions about feelings and attitudes. I agree that > > it would not be applicable to anything else! If I prove a theorem > > and publish my results, then words and equations will convey 100% of > > the content, if I have written up my results properly. > > I came over stronger than I meant, sorry. > (not the first time and I will respond to another thread) > > I will make an excuse. I've been close to a community which is full of > rather unpleasant sharks who spout the kind of nonsense in question. > It's rare to find it used correctly, perhaps you are the first I've come > across, so in a way it might be good that you are aware it is a risky > subject, better here than out there. > > It is probably a far more interesting subject when properly applied. > > Another one is the tale about Harvard/Yale students from 195x about > them making lists. No such study exists and people like > Robbins//Ziglar etc. when asked to put up just point to their own > kind as it must be true because they say it too! It is literally > circular. Very telling is that these affirmation types know full well > but carry on regardless. > A side effect is creating bad management who hurt people like us, where > I have literally come across it. In a way the funniest was this clown > who praised my trouser buckle (kid not), tried on NLP clap-trap. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 srabande wrote: > I am fascinated by this exchange between and Tim. Mostly > because I am, in a word: lost. LOL What is called the aspidistra version of English. Did you know I omit smileys? > I went to the website link Tim offered regarding Albert Mehrabian. > > It says that there are three elements to face to face communication: > > - words > - tone of voice > - body language > > Is this the dead granny being parroted, meaning Albert Mehrabian's > studies that resulted in this 7% 38% 55% rule are a bad thing, a good > thing and/or a dangerous thing. Or are both of agreeing with these > studies. I will try and write clearly. The study is old and is a normal kind of research finding. The finding is very often abused by taking it out of the correct context making the finding not applicable. I suppose it is an example of false logic, false deduction, Some people mostly do not use words [in highly emotional circumstances] therefore All people mostly do not use words [in all circumstances] Which is nonsense. The former is a research finding, the latter may not be drawn from it. The dead granny is stating the research finding is true for all communication, omitting to say it is only valid for a very small subset of circumstances. It is possible the finding does have a wider applicability but without a factual basis for saying that it is unsafe. > When I read the web page, the conclusions presented seemed absolutely > like everything I've ever known in this regard. So Mehrabian makes > perfect sense to me. So far as I know the research is fine and should make sense. I agree with you it is common sense. Perhaps what you are seeing is a way that many AS think, which tends to be a little different. > I was also aware that some or many of these conclusions would probably > not apply to AS. Which, to me, just means they aren't applicable to > AS. Just as a big box of chocolates wouldn't apply to a diabetic, but > that wouldn't mean the big box is dangerous to non-diabetics. How it applies to AS is a whole different subject. I wasn't even thinking about that. Perhaps therein is the problem. You are generalising we are detailing. A lot of things in the world are intensely complex and huge. This is overwhelming to anyone but AS and NT seem to have different solutions to handling it. Guessing, there is something from computer science which kind of describes the difference and here goes with a classic AS way of describing using analogy. Top down and bottom up. I tend to use bottom up whereas most people do and are taught top down, later on in training having to be forced to do bottom up. Top down means here is the grand overall what it is but there is no idea of how it works or how it can be done. This is a blob with the label magic written on it. Bottom up takes real known working fragments and builds larger fragments using those until there is a whole. Notice that Autistic are often said to concentrate on parts of objects. Notice also obsessions with precision, regularising. Practical reality is a combination of the two, not often done well. The above actually describes most things from making a building to organising a party. This is also what Baron-Cohen describes in a rather bad way, systemising. It's also probably to do with why we are able to push the world forwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.