Abnormal Interests

I'm not saying I think this guy's interpretation is correct. But it sounds like you don't think we can't learn anything from non-verbal gestures during spoken discourse? I'm no full-scale behviorist, but I think the comportment of one's body can add a layer to speaking. I don't think it's mind reading to try to interpret those body movements. It may, rather, have to do with how comfortable one is in saying what one has to say. There are gestures that may hint at deception, irony, etc. Is that what the guy was doing?

Alan,

I agree that body language does communicate. That's why face to face communications are so important. But, in real time did you see what Navarro saw? I sure didn't. And if you read his discussion of Michelle's speech, "She's a beautiful woman. You know, her hugs are genuine" it's hard not to think there is an anti-Clinton factor in the mix. I happen to agree with him about Michelle and not about Clinton, but that is irrelevant. What does an "expert" bring to this discussion that you or I don't bring if we are more sensitive than a watermelon.

By the way, there was much that I liked abut Clinton's speech. I thought it was one of her best. But I sure didn't like the fact that a speech like that was needed. I would have preferred a more sober discussion of issues. If the professional politicians can't bring us that, I'm still idealistic enough to think that the news media should. Which would be more important (or even interesting), this discussion of Clinton's body language or her claim that McCain is against equal pay for women. The basis of the claim is interesting, important and complex but someone's options on body language just aren't. Or perhaps better, they aren't important to me.

Now, I don't know what Duane's gestures when he wrote this, but I think I know where he's coming from here in regards to the irritating vacuousness of American politics. We get CNN and FoxNews up here in Canada unfortunately (but thank god for the CBC, eh).

Gesture interpretation is all fine and dandy but when it's used, as I suspect it is in this case, to drown out the important issues with primate minutia, then I think it's one's duty as an American citizen to be skeptical, object to this intellectual hijacking and force the topic back to focus.

For example, at what _point_ do these gestures occur in these speeches? What is being said concurrently with the gesture? I doubt any printed article no matter how thorough will go into such painful detail like that at the risk of nauseating the reader. And yet it's important to this topic if anything is to be learned from it at all. (And probably nothing at all can be learned from it anyway.)

If the American people think that their White House should be treasonously corrupted into a Reality TV Circus of melodrama, they'll get more than they bargained for. Sure, totalitarianism can be fun for some but personally I don't enjoy it much unless I'm the dictator.

My comment was rather abstract. I didn't read Navarro's interpretation and I didn't see the speech, either! Yesterday was the day before class. I think you're right, though, that politically speaking the analysis of body language shouldn't be a high priority. I'm sure Navarro was not completely unbiased in what he counted as evidence. . . .