[syndicate] Re: ask usenet

[Michael Watson]

"we tend to interpret avoidance of eye-contact as a signal for
deceptiveness. On the other hand, almost constant eye-contact may
be interpreted as deliberate overcompensation, so may also be
interpreted as a signal of deceptiveness. Much depends, as always,
on our assessment of the context and of the other person...I once
had a boss who met almost any even slightly awkward question with
prolonged, unblinking eye-contact. As I was the union
representative at the time, I took this as an attempt to intimidate
me, so stared back, which always became so absurd after a time that
I could barely repress my laughter, with the result that when he
did eventually say something it was greeted by a broad smile from
me. He then became visibly more relaxed, presumably because he
thought I was pleased by his reply, only to tense up visibly when
my rejoinder made it perfectly clear that I was far from satisfied.
A lot of potential there for communication breakdown! When one of
my students went to interview him, his question was also met with a
prolonged stare. As this student had just come from another college
whose principal was open, friendly and accessible, it didn't occur
to the student to interpret the stare as an attempt to intimidate.
He was in fact just about to spring from his chair and go to the
principal's assistance when the principal finally spoke. As the
student reported to me after the interview, he thought that the
principal was suffering a catatonic fit."

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/index.html

"Fr. M." <fmadre at free.fr> wrote:At 23:09 11/09/2003 -0700, you
wrote:
>Would you like to talk 
>now 
>or later?

not to you.

f.



-----Syndicate mailinglist-----------------------
Syndicate network for media culture and media art
information and archive: http://anart.no/~syndicate
to post to the Syndicate list: 
Shake the KKnut: http://anart.no/~syndicate/KKnut
no commercial use of the texts without permission